2010-06-15 PacketCITY OF ALAMEDA 9 CALIFORNIA
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND
COMMUNITY UNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CI
TU -JUNE 1.512010 5: 00 P.M.
Location: Cit Council Chambers Conference Room, Cit Hall, corner of Santa Clara
Avenue and Oak Street
1. Roll Call Cit Council, CIC
2. Public Comment on A Items Onl
An wishin to address the Council/Commission on a items onl ma
speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per item
3. Adjournment to Closed Session to consider:
Cit Council
3-A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Si exposure to liti pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9
Number of cases.- One [Continued from June 1, 2010
3-B. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION (54957
Title- Cit Attorne
3-C. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Si exposure to liti pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9
Number of cases: One [Continued from June 1, 2010
3-D. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Initiation of liti pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9
Number of cases: One
City Council, C.1C
3-E. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR
Propert 1590 and 1616 Fortmann Wa
Ne Parties: Warmin Homes, Cit of Alameda and CIC
Under Negotiations: Price and terms [Continued from June 1 2010]
4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session if any
5. Adjournment city council, CIC
W
J31 M- ��1 Y
iF
F t
CITY OF ALAMEDA •CALIFORNIA
IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL:
1. Please file a speaker's slip with the Assistant City Clerk and
upon recognition by the Mayor, approach the podium and state
your name; speakers are limited to three (3) minutes per item
2. Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and only a
summary of pertinent points presented Verbally
3. Applause and demonstration are prohibited during Council
meetings
AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY JUNE 1 20'10 7 :00 P.M.
[Note: Regular Council [meeting convenes at 7:00 pm, City Hall, council Chambers,
corner of Santa Clara Avenue and oak Street]
The Order of Business for City Council Meeting is as follows:
1. Roll Call
2. Agenda Changes
3. Proclamations, Special Orders of the Day and Announcements
4. Consent Calendar
5. City Manager Communications
6. Regular Agenda Items
7. Oral Communications, Non Agenda (Public Comment)
8. Council Referrals
9. Council Communications (Communications from Council)
10. Adjournment
Public Participation
Anyone wishing to address the Council on agenda items or business introduced by
Councilmembers may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per agenda item when the
subject is before Council. Please file a speaker's slip with the Assistant City clerk if you
wish to address the City Council.
SPECIAL JOINT [MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND 5 :00 P.M.
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONFERENCE ROOM
Separate Agenda (Closed Session)
REGULAR MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA PUBLIC FINANCING 7 :01 P.M.
AUTHORITY, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Separate Agenda
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND ALAMEDA 7 :02 P.M.
REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, AND ANNUAL MEETING OF THE
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
1 ROLL CALL city council
2. AGENDA CHANGES
3. PROCLAMATIONS SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY ANNOUNCEMENTS
3 -A. Proclamation Recognizing contributions to the city by Gay and Lesbian
Residents and Encouraging the community to Recognize These contributions,
Particularly During the Month of June, Gay Pride Month.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
Consent calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted, approved or
adopted by one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or
explanation is received from the Council or a member of the public
4 -A. Minutes of the Regular city council Meeting held on June 1, 2010. (City clerk)
4 -B. Bills for Ratification. (Finance)
4--C. Recommendation to Approve an Agreement with Holland Knight, LLP, in the
Amount of $90,000 for Federal Legislative Advocacy Services. (City Manager)
4 -D. Recommendation to Accept the Boys Girls Club Joint Use Agreement.
(Recreation and Parks)
4 -E. Recommendation to Award a contract in the Amount of $95,110, Including
Contingencies, to PSOMAS consulting civil Engineers for an Assessment of
Existing Storm Drain Pump Stations, No. P.W. 05-10-13. (Public Works)
4 -F. Recommendation to Award a contract in the Amount of $93,380, Including
Contingencies, to Fehr Engineering for Design Services for the Serer Pump
Station Backup Generator Project, No. P.W. 04- 10 -10. (Public Works)
4 -G. Recommendation to Award a contract in the Amount of $147,552, Including
Sales Tax and Contingencies, to Resource and Design, Inc. for Furnishings for
the Neighborhood Library improvement Project, No. P.W. 10- 09 -29. (Public
Works)
4 -H. Recommendation to Award a contract in the amount of $227,853, Including
Contingencies, to Golden Bay Construction, Inc. for culvert Reconstruction at
Various Locations, No. P.W. 02- 10 -04. (Public Works)
4 -1. Recommendation to Appropriate $300,000 in Community Development Block
Grant Funds and Award a contract in the Amount of $2,731 ,305, Including
Contingencies, to Gallagher Burk, Inc. for the Repair and Resurfacing of
Certain Streets, Phase 29, No. P.W. 02-09 -06. (Public Works)
4 -J. Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the Interim City Manager to Implement a City
Wide Policy on Integrated Pest Management. (Public Works)
4 -K. Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the Interim city Manager to Submit a Grant
Application to Caltrans for the Safe Routes to School Program for the Fiscal Year
201 0/201 1 Grant Funding cycle, Use $40,860 in Transportation Development
Act, Article 3 Funds for the Local Match, and Execute All Necessary Documents.
(Public Works)
4 -L. Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the city of Alameda Fire Department to
Access Federal Level Summary criminal History for Emergency Medical
Technicians. [Requires Four Affirmative votes] (Fire)
4 -M. Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Examination of Sales, Use and Transactions
Tax Records. (Finance)
4 -N. Introduction of an Ordinance Approving Amendment to Master Plan MP05 -01 for
Grand Marina Village to Reduce the Number of Required Affordable Housing
Units. (Community Development)
5. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS (Communications from City Manager)
6 -A. PERS Actuarial Update Bartel and Associates
6. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
6 -A. Public bearing to consider Adoption of Resolution Authorizing collection of
Delinquent Integrated Waste Management Accounts by Means. of the Property
Tax Bills. (Public Works)
6 -B. Public bearing to consider Adoption of Resolution Approving the Engineer's
Report, Confirming Diagram and Assessment, and ordering Levy of
Assessments, Island city Landscaping and Lighting District 84 -2, All Zones.
(Public Works)
6 -C. Public bearing to consider Adoption of Resolution Approving the Engineer's
Report, Confirming Diagram and Assessment, and ordering Levy of
Assessments, Maintenance Assessment District 01 -01 (Marina cove) (Public
Works)
6 -D. Public bearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution Establishing Integrated Waste
Collection Ceiling Rates and Service Fees for Alameda County Industries, Inc.,
for Rate Period 9 (July 2010 to June 2011); and Allocation of $21 0,000 from the
Integrated Waste Management Account. (Public Works)
8 -E. Public Hearing Relating to Issuance of Bonds by the Alameda Public Financing
Authority and Considering Adoption of Resolutions. (1) Of Intention to Levy
Reassessments and to Issue Refunding Bonds Upon the Security Thereof
Relating to the city of Alameda Marina Village Assessment District 89 -1; (2)
Adopting Reassessment Report for the city of Alameda Marina Village
Reassessment District No. 10 -1, confirming and ordering the Reassessments
and Directing Actions with Respect Thereto; and (3) Authorizing the Issuance of
Two series of Refunding Bonds, Providing for Execution of Fiscal Agent
Agreements and other Matters with Respect Thereto, and Making Findings with
Respect to and Approving the Issuance of Bonds by the Alameda Public
Financing Authority. (City Manager) [In conjunction with APFA Item #2 -B and
Joint Item #2 -B]
0 -F. Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the Interim City Manager to Apply for
Regional Measure 1 Five Percent Unrestricted state Funds and Two Percent
Bridge Toll Reserve Funds for the operating Subsidy and capital Projects, and
Regional Measure 2 Bridge Toll Funds for the city of Alameda Ferry Services,
and to Enter Into All Agreements Necessary to Secure These Funds for Fiscal
Year 2010 -2011;
i. Recommendation to Authorize the Interim city Manager to Negotiate and
Execute a Fifth Amendment to the Amended and Restated Ferry services
Agreement with the Port of Oakland to Extend the Term for one Additional
Year at a Cost of $00,049;
ii. Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Negotiate and
Execute an Eighth Amendment to the Sixth Amended and Restated
Operating Agreement for the Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry and Adopt the
Associated Budgets; and
iii. Recommendation to Authorize the Interim city Manager to Negotiate and
Execute an A mendment to the Agreement to Extend the Terra for one
Additional Year of the Blue Gold Fleet operating Agreement with the
Alameda /Oakland Ferry Service and Adopt Associated Budgets. (Public
Works)
6 -G. Final Passage of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding
Section 2 -71 (Election Campaign Contributions) to Article_ VI (Elections) of
Chapter II (Administration) to Create Enforceable Limits on Election Contributions
to Facilitate Local Campaign Finance Reform and Promote Broader and More
Open Citizen Participation in the Electoral Process. (City Attorney)
7. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS NON AGENDA {Public Comment}
Any person may address the council in regard to any matter over which the
Council has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance, that is not on the
agenda
8. COUNCIL REFERRALS
Matters placed on the agenda by a Councilmember may be acted upon or
scheduled as a future agenda item
8 -A. Consideration of Addressing Parking in Impacted Residential Neighborhoods
around Alameda High School. (Councilmember Matarrese)
9. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (Communications from Council)
Councilmembers can address any matter, including reporting on any
Conferences or meetings attended
9 -A. Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to the Civil Service Board,
Dousing Commission, Library Board, Planning Board, Public Utilities Board,
Transportation Commission, and Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee.
9 -B. written Communication from the League of California Cities requesting
designation of Voting Delegate for the League's 2010 Annual Conference.
10. ADJOURNMENT City Council
a Materials related to an item on the agenda are available for public inspection in the
City Clerk's office, City Hall, Room 380, during normal business hours
0 Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact the City Clerk
at 747 -4800 or TDD number 522 -7538 at least 72 hours prior to the Meeting to
request an interpreter
Q Equipment. for the hearing impaired is available for public use. For assistance,
please contact the City Clerk at 747 -4800 or TDD number 522 --7538 either prior to,
or at, the Council Meeting
a Accessible seating for persons with disabilities, including those using wheelchairs, is
available
Minutes of the meeting available in enlarged print
Audio Tapes of the meeting are available upon request
Please contact the City Clerk at 747 -4800 or TDD number 522 -7538 at least 48
hours prior to the meeting to request agenda materials in an alternative format, or
any other reasonable accommodation that may be necessary to participate in and
enjoy the benefits of the meeting
f
EZ: OF ALAMEDA CALIFORNIA.
110 x,�
P"
r�
1
�F ?'AH '1'I:kLSC ft�j
REGULAR MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA PUBLIC
FINANCING AUTHORITY APFA
TUESDAY JUNE 15 2010 -7:01 P.M.
Location council chambers, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and oak Street
Public Participation
Anyone wishing to address the Board on agenda items or business introduced by Board
Members may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per agenda item when the subject is
before the Board. Please file a speaker's slip with the Assistant city Clerk if you wish to
speak on an agenda item.
1. Roll call APFA
2. Minutes
2 -A. Minutes of the Annual APFA Meeting of March 16, 2010 and the Special APFA
Meeting of June 1, 2010. (City clerk)
2 -13. Adoption of Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Alameda Public Financing
Authority Authorizing the Issuance of Its 2010 Local Agency Refunding Revenue
Bonds (Harbor Bay CFD and Marina Village AD), and Approving Documents and
Authorizing Actions in Connection Therewith. (City Manager) [In conjunction with
City Council Item #6 -A and Joint Item #2 -B]
3. Agenda Items
None
6.
Oral Communications (Public Comment)
Any person may address the Board in regard to any matter over which the Board
has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is not on the agenda
Board Communications (Communications from the Board)
6. Adjournment APFA
z F;'
.CITY OFAL A CALIFORNIA
s
p •.r.r vys J
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ARRA AND
ANNUAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION CIC
TUESDAY JUNE 15 2010 -7:02 P.M.
Location city council Chambers, city Hall, corner of Santa Clara Ave and oak Street
Public Participation
Anyone wishing to address the council /Board /Commission on agenda items or business
introduced by the Council /Board /Commission may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per
agenda item when the subject is before the Council/Board/Commission. Please file a speaker's
slip with the Assistant city clerk if you wish to speak,
1 ROLL CALL City Council, ARRA, CIC
2. CONSENT CALENDAR
Consent calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted, approved or
adopted by one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or explanation is
received from the council /Board /commission or a member of the public
2 -A. Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, ARRA and CIC Meeting held on June
1 2010. [City Council, ARRA, CIC] (City Clerk)
2 -13. Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Execution and Delivery of an Agreement
Regarding Refunding of Authority Bonds. [CIC] (City Manager) [In conjunction
with City Council Item #6 -A and APFA Item #2 -B]
3. CITY MANAGER /EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATION
3 -A. Semimonthly Update on SunCal Negotiations [City Council, ARRA, CIC]
3 -13. Status Report of Finalized Navy Term Sheet Mandatory Milestone pursuant to
Exclusive Negotiating Agreement Section 422. [City Council, ARRA, CIC]
(City Manager)
4. AGENDA ITEMS
4 -A. Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution Approving and Adopting the
Five -Year Implementation Plan for the Business and Waterfront and the West
End Community Improvement Projects (2010 2014). [CIC] (Economic
Development) [Continued from June 2, 20101
5. ADJOURNMENT -City Council, ARRA, CIC
'96verly 4 Qh I)n,ayor
Chair, AR and IC
WHEREAS, it has become traditional for communities across America to recognize their
lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) residents during the month of
June; and
WffFREAS, Al ameda i s home to a large number of LGBT in d ividuals, couples, and their
families; and
MHEIZEAS, LGBT people, as the rainbow flag symbolizes, come from every group,
religion, ethnicity, profession/ ability /disability, size and shape; and
WHEIREAS, members of the Alameda gay and lesbian community have a lw a ys—and
continue to—d e d icate their lives to the country in every capacity, including
the military and military reserves, in times of peace and war; and
WHEREAS LLGB T resider d is con l ib u to to Alameda as I �or neo vv ners, Laxpayers, business
owners, employees, and providers of critical professional services; and
WH FIR EAS, LGBT residents have enriched the diverse community of Alameda through
their participation in city government, the arts, religious institutions, and
community organizations; and
WgE 4S, Al LGBT residents, their friends, and their f amilies believe that all
children and youth deserve to be protected from bullying and harassment,
be it from gender, sexual orientation, or from ethnicity, size, race,
ability /disability, or any other characteristic of appearance; and
WHEREAS, the C of Alameda has stood f i rmly behind efforts of the LGBT commu
at large to achieve equal treatment under the law.
NOW rWEIZEFoRE BE rr RESOLVED that I, Beverly J. Johnson, do hereby proclaim the
month of June as
in appreciation of the contributions of the LGBT community and its successful quest for equal
rights. K7 ,y
son
r
City Council
Agenda Item 3
06-15-10
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY C OUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -JUNE 'I 2010- -7:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the meeting at 7.08 p.m. Councilmember Gilmore led the
Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL Present: Councilrnembers del -laan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tarn
and Mayor Johnson 5.
Absent: None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(1Q- )Mayor Johnson announced that the Public Hearing on the Joint Meeting
[paragraph no. 10- CICI would be held on June 15, 2010.
PROCLAMATIONS SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Gilmore made a correction to page 3 of the minutes.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar with the correction
to the minutes.
Councilmember Tarn seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph
number.
*10- Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on May 18,
2010. Approved.
*10- Ratified bills in the amount of $3,946,517.68.
*10- Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize a Call for
Bids for Citywide Sewer Mains and Laterals video Inspection, Phase 3, No. P.W. 02 -10-
08 Accepted.
*10- )Recommendation to Allocate $161,000 from the Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry
Long -Term Reserve Account for the Bay Breeze Propulsion System Maintenance and
Authorize the Interim City Manager to Execute all Necessary Documents. Accepted.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June `l, 2010
None.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(10- Resolution No. 14446, "Appointing Kelly Harp as a Member of the Commission
on Disability Issues." Adopted; and
(10- A) Resolution No. 14447, "Appointing Jeanette Mei as a Member of the Youth
Advisory Commission." Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions.
Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote 5.
The City Clerk administered the oath of office and presented a certificate of
appointment to Ms. Harp.
(10- Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 14445, "Confirming the Business
Improvement Area Report for Fiscal Year 2010-2011 and Levying an Annual
Assessment on the Alameda Business Improvement Area of the City of Alameda for
Fiscal Year 2010-2011." Adopted.
The Economic Development Director gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote 5.
(10- Public Hearing to Consider Collection of Delinquent Administrative Citation Fees
Via the Property Tax Bills for Subject Properties.
The Chief Building official gave a brief presentation.
Speaker: Marco Servente.
Councilmember Gilmore moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote 5.
(10- Public Hearing to Consider Collection of Delinquent Business License Fees Via
the Property Tax Bills.
The Deputy City Manager Administrative Services gave a brief presentation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 2
June 1, 2010
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the $6,127.23 past due for a particular business is
for one year, to which the Supervising Accountant responded in the affirmative.
Councilrnernber Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote 5.
10- Introduction of ordinance Amending the
Section 2 -71 (Election Campaign Contributions) t
(Administration) to Create Enforceable Limits on
Local Campaign Finance Reform and Promote
Participation in the Electoral Process. Introduced.
The City Attorney gave a brief presentation.
Alameda Municipal Code by Adding
o Article VI (Elections) of Chapter II
Election Contributions to Facilitate
Broader and More Open Citizen
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Section 2 -71.2 (a) is similar to State law provisions.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the amount required for detailed
disclosure is lower; State law would be in effect, if Council does not adopt the provision.
In response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry, the City Attorney stated the disclosure amount
could be changed from $50.00 to $100-00; that she would double check to ensure the
ordinance would not duplicate State law before the second reading.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Section 2 -71.2 (a) could be eliminated if the disclosure
amount is left at $100, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether section 2 -71.4 is a repeat of Section 2 -71.2 (a).
The City Attorney responded the section is a little different; stated the section describes
the aggregate amount.
Mayor Johnson stated the ordinance should be as simple as possible; inquired whether
Section 2 -71.5 is the same as state law.
The City Clerk responded sub section 3 requires an additional filing beyond the first and
second pre election statements; stated the additional statement would need to be filed
by 2:00 p.m. on the Friday preceding the election.
Mayor Johnson stated the Housing Authority should be added to Section 2 -71.7.
The City Attorney stated Section 2 --71.7 would apply to any contract for any purpose
with the City; "for any purpose including, but not limited, to contracts" could be added.
Mayor Johnson inquired where is the oral reporting requirement, to which the City
Attorney responded Section 2.71.6.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 3
June 1, 2010
Mayor Johnson stated complying with said section could be impossible.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether capping expenditures was considered, to
which the City Attorney responded in the negative; stated State law discourages
capping expenditures; case law prohibits capping expenditures.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the city Attorney is saying that case law
prohibits capping expenditures.
The city Attorney responded none of the modeled cities put any cap on campaign
expenditures; a voluntary cap could be established; stated there is no cap on an
individual's ability to contribute to their own campaign.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the League of Women voters cited State and federal law
prohibiting expenditure caps.
The City Attorney stated voluntary expenditure caps could be imposed.
Councilmember Gilmore requested clarification on what "election period" means.
The city Attorney responded the election period starts January Est after the last General
election and ends December 31 after the election; stated the election period would
have started January 1, 2009 and would go through December 31, 2010 if the last
General election was November 2008; special elections have different rules.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the intent is to be retroactive, to which the
City Attorney responded in the negative.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the ordinance would become effective
January 2, 2011.
The city Attorney responded the ordinance could become effective 30 days after the
second reading or could become effective upon the second reading because the
ordinance would be pertaining to elections; stated any contributions already received
would not be a violation because the ordinance would not be effective until June 15 th or
July 15 th
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she is having a hard time understanding the
election period; people find themselves in debt after an election; inquired whether a
person would only have until the end of December to cover debt for a November
election, to which the city Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Gilmore stated a lot of people end up having to fund raise after the fact.
Mayor Johnson stated sneaky people pay debt off with contributions received [after the
Regular Meeting
Alameda city council 4
June 1, 2010
election] because they would not have wanted to show the contribution before the
election.
Councilmember Gilmore stated disclosure statements would still need to be filed.
Mayor Johnson stated the person would already have been elected.
Councilrnernber Gilmore stated paying off debts would be a hardship if the election is in
November and contributions can only be received until December.
Mayor Johnson stated the purpose is to let voters know who is financing campaigns
before the election.
The City Attorney stated that Fremont has a provision for a debt retirement committee
for the sole purpose of receiving contributions to pay off debt.
Councilmember Tangy stated other campaign finance ordinances seem to go through an
exhaustive, open process; inquired how much time other cities took in an open,
community process before adoption and whether ordinance were adopted for existing or
future Councilmembers, to which the city Attorney responded that she does not know.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the issue was discussed with the League of Women Voters
two years ago; a public meeting was held; about 50% of cities have some type of
campaign finance reform in place; the issue has been discussed for quite a while.
Councilmember Tam stated that the process should be done right; the ordinance needs
to go through an open, public process; knowing what the community wants is important
so that the ordinance does not become a solution in search of a problem; campaign
finance reform was discussed within the confines of the sunshine Task Force and
should be referred to the sunshine Task Force for a more comprehensive review;
community members are very well versed on good government issues; Alameda has a
number of good government groups, such as the League of Women Voters, that can
help organize the public forum; that she also has a problem understanding the election
period tinning; the timing creates some inherent conflicts because some
Councilmembers have well established campaigns and have made commitments to
vendors and contractors; the ordinance would place campaigns at a disadvag
nta e;
creating an ordinance with two months before the filing period is unfair; the ordinance
should be vetted and implemented next year at the earliest; jamming the ordinance
forward would have an inherent conflict of interest for existing Councilmembers; the
discussion should be broadened; the ordinance should be referred to the Sunshine
Task Force.
Mayor Johnson stated the proposed ordinance would be for the benefit of the public;
Alameda is behind the ball on the issue; something should have been done a number of
years ago; the issue is not rocket science; referring the matter to the sunshine Task
Force is not necessary; the public is surprised that an ordinance is not in place already;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 5
June 1, 2010
that she does not think people expect a long, drawn out process.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she is not receiving public outcry about the issue
being a problem that needs to be solved; in the past, a candidate spent a lot of her own
money on an election, which made people take notice; that she does not think there is a
burning desire to have the ordinance done yesterday; the public has not had an
adequate opportunity to comment; Council does not know ghat the public perceives as
the problem.
Be Kate Quick, League of Women Voters of Alameda.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the proposed ordinance only has four or five basic elements
and is not part of the Sunshine Task Force purview per say; the intent is to try to bring
the cap down to a working level.
The City Attorney stated while there is a disclosure requirement, State lave does not
have any restriction on local government campaign contribution amounts.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the City is bringing itself in line with State government and
other cities; that he feels comfortable moving forward on the matter.
In response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry, the City Attorney stated the proposed
ordinance could become effective the second reading or July 15 th language could be
changed if directed.
Mayor Johnson stated city council meetings are part of the public process; that she
does not think there is a reason to not move forward; ordinances can be changed; the
Sunshine Task Force can suggest changes.
Councilmember Gilmore stated campaign reform has been discussed on two occasions;
tonight is the first time specific language has been discussed; the public has not had the
opportunity to comment on specific language and should have the opportunity to do so;
the ordinance can be changed but the problem is doing so in the middle of campaign
season and people would be asked to change prior commitments.
Mayor Johnson stated people can come to the Council meeting to speak on the matter;
there is no reason to delay.
Councilmember Tam moved that the proposed ordinance be sent to the Sunshine Task
Force for review.
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Gilmore stated the ordinance should be done right
rather than quickly; having the proposed ordinance in place in a couple of months would
be okay that she has a problem with not having the public weighing in on the matter.
Regular Meeting
Alameda city council 6
June 1, 2010
Councilmember Matarrese stated there would be a second reading; direction was given
to the City Attorney to craft ordinances in parallel with the Sunshine Task Force; the
Sunshine Task Force should review the proposed ordinance within the two -week; that
he does not see anything wrong with the $99 State limit; the $250 limit is a good starting
place.
Mayor Johnson stated that she does not think the Sunshine Task Force is scheduled to
meet in the next two weeks; suggested leaving out oral disclosure; stated that she does
not know how research could be done; suggested going with the $99 State law
disclosure limitation; stated Alameda campaigns are small and do not have paid,
professional treasurers or managers; that she is okay with $500 or $250 contribution
limits.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the proposed ordinance could be more encompassing;
Political Action Committees (PACs) which are not addressed in other cities; $250 is a
good threshold.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired who decided the threshold.
The City Attorney responded $250 and $500 are the most common thresholds; stated
Union City has the highest threshold, which is $000.
Councilmember Tarn restated that her motion is to defer the issue to the Sunshine Task
Force and to create a more open, robust public process.
On the call for the question, the motion FAILED by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Gilmore and Tara 2. Noes: Councilmembers deHaan, Matarrese and
Mayor Johnson ---3.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated tweaking has been discussed; Section 2 -71.2 could be left
out; $50 could be changed to $99; anything over $100 would need to be disclosed;
Section 2 -71.6 could be struck.
Mayor Johnson stated the Housing Authority should be added along with clarification.
The City Attorney inquired whether there is an interest in providing a debt retirement
committee provision; stated Fremont and Union city have said provision.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he would like the issue to be flushed out.
Mayor Johnson stated that a debt retirement committee provision could be complicated;
information should be provided; the ordinance could be adopted as a separate
ordinance.
In response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry, the city Attorney stated a candidate
Regular Meeting
Alameda City council 7
June 1, 2010
would have until December 31' [following the November election] to receive
contributions for the election period unless a debt retirement committee provision is
added.
/Mayor Johnson stated that she would be interested into looking at a solution to the
issue.
The City Attorney inquired what effective date Council desires.
Vice Mayor deHaan responded that he would prefer the date of final adoption.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether Council is satisfied with the election period
definition.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he understands the election period would start
January 1 st following the last General election; every election would have a two y ear
period, which is vastly different from now; campaigns are getting longer; inquired
whether there is a way to extend the period for debt retirement and prevent large, single
donations that could skew an election after the fact and whether the post election period
currently runs from January 1 st and the next reporting period would be June.
The City Clerk responded a filing would be due the end of January and would cover the
end of the last period through the end of December.
In response to Councilmember Matarrese's inquiry, the City Attorney stated that she
would guess the reason for setting a limit in an election period would be to prohibit
ongoing war chest building; stated Oakland has a four -year cycle.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether a person would have one month to retire a debt
for a $250 contribution per individual and/or corporation.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated "person" means any legal entity.
Councilmember Gilmore stated Section 2 -71.5 (b) (3) is different from State law and
requires a campaign statement be filed the Friday before the election.
The City Attorney stated the alternative would be to go with State law.
The City Clerk stated State law would still require filing, if there are expenditures over
$1,000 du ring the late period.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether there is a majority preference for the $250 limit,
to which Mayor Johnson responded that she is comfortable with said limit.
The City Attorney summarized the proposed amendments to the ordinance: to correct
and possibly eliminate Section 2 -71.2 (a) and Section 2 -71.4 and stay with State
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 8
June 1, 2010
disclosure requirements; Section 2 -71.4 would be consistent with the $100 limit; Section
2 -71.5 (b) (3) would stay; Section 2 -71.0 would be struck; Section 2 -71.7 would have
the Housing Authority added and language would be clarified to make it abundantly
clear that it means any contract; the effective date would be the date of final passage.
Vice Mayor del-laan moved introduction of the ordinance with amendments.
Councilmernber Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilrnernber Matarrese requested that the proposed ordinance be
posted on the website and the Sunshine Task Force be invited to comment; stated that
he would welcome input; adjustments can be made at the second reading.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the fallowing voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmernbers deHaan, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson 3. Noes: Councilmembers
Gilmore and Tam 2.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS NON- AGENDA
10- Michael John Torrey, Alameda, invited everyone to attend ARRL Field Day on
June 20 th
X 10- Philip Tribuzio, Alameda, discussed the America's Cup.
Councilrnernber Tarn left the dias at 8:17 p.m. and returned at 8:20 p.m.
10- Jane Sullwold, Alameda Junior Golf, submitted a letter, urged that approval of a
Lease be placed on a council agenda as soon as possible.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
X 10- Councilmember Gilmore stated Council passed a policy urging residents and the
City to shop Alameda first; the City has not been good at offering opportunities to
residents and businesses; some web designers are upset that they have not been given
the opportunity to compete for contracts.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated in the past, monthly financial reports showed the amount
spent locally; requested that the report be provided regularly.
Councilrnember Matarrese stated competitive bidding has been discussed in the past
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 0
June 1, 2010
and should be added to the list.
Mayor Johnson stated council could be provided with a briefing on the contract
process.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the meeting at 8:26 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 10
June 1, 2010
CITY OF ALAM E DA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Lisa Goldman
Deputy City Manager
Date: June 10, 2010
Re: List of warrants for Ratification
This is to certify that the claims listed on the attached check register and shown below have been
approved by the proper officials and, in my opinion, represent fair and just charges against the. City in
accordance with their respective amounts as indicated thereon.
Check Numbers
Amount
229079 229383
$2,425,923.30
EFT 857
$99,993.50
EFT 858
$853343.33
EFT 859
$4,322,72
EFT' 860
$7,702.82
EFT 861
?,708.88
EFT 862
$234,130.74
EFT 863
$1 13953.50
Void Checks:
228981 ($2,345.00)
GRAND D TOTAL
Respectfully submitted,
Deputy City Manager
Council warrants 06/15/10
$2
BILLS #4 -B
6/15/2010
CITY OF DA
Mem
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City council
From: Ann Marie Gallant
Interim city M anager
Date: June 15, 2010
Re: Approve an Agreement with Holland Knight, LLP, in the Amount of
96,000 for Federal Legislative Advocacy Services
In June 2004, the city retained the services of Holland Knight (H+K) to provide federal
legislative and regulatory advocacy services. The current agreement with H +K expires
at the end of June. The proposed new agreement, which would cover the period from
July 1, 2010 until June 30, 2011, is on file in the city clerk's office.
DISCUSSION
The attached City of Alameda Federal Legislative Successes provides information on
the firm's past legislative successes and its recent work for the City. In FY 2000, the
City received $700,000 in the Transportation Treasury- Housing and Urban
Development (TTHUD) appropriations conference report for Park Street pedestrian
safety transportation improvements. An additional $300,000 was inclu.ded in the House
version of the bill for FY 2007, but congress did not pass the bill, opting instead to
combine appropriations bills into one continuing resolution that included no project
earmarks. In FY 2008, the city received $400,000 for the Park Street project in the
Transportation Housing and Urban Development bill, while in FY 2009, the City
received $475,000 for this important project. In FY 2010, the City received the final
appropriation of $300,000 to finish the Park Street improvements.
Although the Bay Farm Island shoreline dike and seawall repair project received a
project listing in the Senate Energy and water Appropriations bill and the Woodstock to
Webster Neighborhood Improvement Plan received $'100,000 in the House version of
the TTHUD bill for FY 2007, neither project .moved. forward as a result of the passage of
the continuing resolution absent any earmarks. However, the Bay Farm Island project
did receive a project listing in the FY 2009 Energy and Water Appropriations conference
report, which enables staff to work with the local corps of Engineers office to move this
project forward. In addition, in FY 20 the project was identified in the US Army corps
of Engineers budget for the first time and will receive $150,000.
Two years ago, city staff, in concert with Holland Knight, led a joint effort with cities in
Alameda and contra costa Counties to secure funding for the Bast Bay regional
City Council
A genda Item #4
06- 5 -10
Honorable Mayor and June 15, 2010
Members of the City Council Page 2 of 3
Communications System Authority (EBRCSA). As a result, the EBRCSA was awarded
$1.17M in the FY 2009 Commerce- Justice Science Appropriations conference report
and $1.05 million in the FY 2010 conference report.
For FY 2011 H +K assisted the city in submitting five projects to the city's
Congressional delegation: the Bay Farm Island Shoreline Dike and Seawall project, the
EBRCSA, environmental remediation and demolition of existing improvements at
Alameda Landing, and the citywide Bus Shelter program, and the Mitchell- Mosely
Avenue Transportation Improvements project. Mr. Stark has submitted four of the city's
priorities to the House Appropriations Committee for their consideration. (The House no
longer requires previously "listed" energy and water projects like the Bay Farm Island
project to be resubmitted." On the Senate side, Senator Boxer submitted both the
Alameda Landing and EBRCSA projects to the Senate Appropriations Committee, while
Senator Feinstein submitted those two. projects. as well as the Bay Farm Island
Shoreline Dike and Seawall project. The House. and Senate Appropriations Committees
will continue their work on the various appropriations bills for the next several months.
In addition to providing assistance with the City's appropriations priorities, H+.K has also
helped the City with other legislative. and funding issues. In 2006, H +K helped secure
authorizations and funding in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). SAFETEA -LU included $1.072 million
for planning, design, and construction of an intermodal facility project in Alameda. The
funds are being distributed over four fiscal years. The project was also designated in
federal legislation as a "New Starts" project, which makes it eligible for capital funding in
future federal budgets.
The SAFETEA -LU bill expired in 2009, and a .long -term extension will expire at the end
of 2010. city staff worked with H +K in 2009 to develop white papers and other
supporting documentation for the city's three SAFETEA -LU reauthorization priorities.
the Fruitvale Avenue Lifeline Bridge, the Bay Farm off- street Bicycle Trail, and the
Broadway- Jackson Interchange Improvements. Staff will continue to work with H +K to
advance the city's projects as the reauthorization process continues.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The cost to retain H +K to provide federal legislative and regulatory advocacy is $8,000
per month, for a total of $96,000. H +K reduced its rate from $10,000 per month to
$8,000 per month in November 2006 and has proposed no increase to the rate this
year. This funding is included in the city council's Intergovernmental Relations
program budget (1211 61080) in FY 10 -11.
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This action does not affect the Municipal Code.
Honorable Ma and
Members of the Cit Council
RECOMMENDATION
June 15, 2010
Pa 3 of 3
Approve an a with Holland and Kni LLP, in the amount of $96,000 for
federal le advocac services.
Respectfull submitted,
Lisa Goldman
Deput Cit Mana
Approved as to funds and account,
tie P��
Evel Leun
Interim Supervisin Accountant
Exhibits:
1. Holland Kni Federal Le Successes
2. A with Holland Knight
��it of Alameda
F ede ral i i is
1 1 1 1 1
At the start of each year, we work with the City to develop priority projects and identify key
policy areas for the annual appropriations cycle. The City has been targeted and consistent in
their requests for key infrastructure and community resource funding. This focused approach has
helped to advance many of the City's priorities. As outlined below, the City has many successes
to show for these efforts.
Park Street Secures Final Piece of Federal Funds
Most notably, the fiscal year 2010 appropriations bill delivered the last piece of Federal funding
for the Park Street Pedestrian Safety Transportation project. Park Street has been a priority
project for the City for the last six appropriations cycles and represents a good example of why a
successful Washington presence involves along -term strategy.
Ba Farm I P roject Scheduled to .Receive Corps F
Fiscal year 2010 also marked the first year that the Bay Farm Island Shoreline Dike Seawall
Repair project was identified in the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) budget. This project
falls under the Corps Continuing Authorities Program. (CAP) which requires congressional
approval to be included on the Corps priority funding list. The demand for CAP funding far
exceeds the annual budget for CAPS and as the City experienced, it often tapes several years of
being "listed" in the annual Energy water Appropriations bill before a project is included in
the Corps list for CAP funding. For FYI 0, the Bay Farm Island project is slated to receive
$150,000 from the Corps.
City's .'BR leadersh G ains Momen in Washington
In addition, the leadership role the City has undertaken on behalf of the East Bay Regional
Communications System continues to gain Federal support. This regional effort has been
embraced by the congressional delegation and the City has been recognized for spearheading this
successful coalition.. During the Mayor's annual trip to Washington in January, the City secured
a high level meeting at the Department of Justice for its EBRCS partners.
APPROPRIATIONS PROJECT SU CCESS FY05 -FYIO
Park Street Pedestrian Safety Transportation Improvements
FYI 0: $300,000 in the :House Transportation -HUD Appropriations conference report
(P.L. 111 -117)
FY09: $475,000 in the Transportation -HUD Appropriations conference report (P.L. I 1I-
S)
FY08: $490,000 in the Transportation -HUD Appropriations conference report (P.L. 110-
161)
FY07: $300,000 in House Transportation- Treasury -IUD Appropriations bill's
FY06: $700,000 in the Transportation Treasury -HUD .Appropriations conference report
(P.L. 109 -115)
Alameda Point A riai Transit Project
City Council
Exhibit I to
Agenda item #4 -C
06 -15 -1®
FY04: $500,000 in the Transportation- Treasury Appropriations conference report (P.L.
108 -199)
Bay Farm Island Shoreline Dike Seawall ..repair
FYI 0: Received a project listing in Energy water Appropriations conference report
(P.L. 111 -85) and is identified for $150,000 in the Corps budget
FY09: Received a project listing in Energy water Appropriations conference report
(P.L. 111 -8)
FY07: Received a project listing in the Senate Energy water Appropriations bill*
Woodstock to Webster Neighborhood Improvement .Flan
FY07 in House Transportation -HUD Appropriations bill*
East Bay Regional Communications System
FYI 0: $1.05M in the Commerce- Justice Science Appropriations conference report (P.L.
111 -117)
FY09: $1.17M in the Commerce Justice Science Appropriations conference report (P.L.
111 -8)
Final year -long CR for FY07 did not include any project earmarks
STATUS OF FYI APPROPRIATIONS PROJECT REQUESTS
Congress is at the starting gate of the annual appropriations cycle. To date, members of the
Douse and Senate have evaluated all funding requests formally submitted to their offices. After
an extensive review, members have passed along only their top priorities to the various
appropriations subcommittees. we expect that subcommittees will initiate the markup process in
the June -July timeframe. The appropriations process; however, is not expected to be completed
until late in the calendar year.
The appropriations process grows more challenging in each year. Regardless, the City's
advocacy efforts continue to ensure solid support at the Federal level. For FYI 1, the City
submitted the following five priorities:
Continuing priorities
.Bay Farm Island Shoreline Dike Seawall Repair: Submitted to the Senate Energy water
Appropriations subcommittee by Senator Feinstein. Note, the House no longer requires
previously "listed" projects to be resubmitted. However, this project continues to have
Congressman Stark's full support.
East Bay Regional Communications System: Submitted to the House Commerce-Justice-
Science Appropriations subcommittee by Congressman Stark and to the Senate Commerce
Justice- Science Appropriations subcommittee by Senators Feinstein and Boxer.
Alameda Landing: Submitted to the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee by
Congressman Stark and to the Senate Defense Appropriations subcommittee by Senators
Feinstein and Boxer.
Citywide Bas Shelter Program: Submitted to the House Transportation-HUD Appropriations
subcommittee by Congressman Stark
New project request
Mitchell Mosely Avenue Transportation Improvements: Submitted to the House
Transportation -HUD Appropriations subcommittee by Congressman Stark
Fo od an d Drag A dm in istration
In the FY08 Douse Agriculture Appropriations bill, we advocated to block a plan by the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) to consolidate several of their Office of Regulatory Affairs
laboratories. This plan would have serious and immediate impacts for the City as the FDA's San
Francisco District Lab is located in Alameda. Blocking this plan represents an important win for
the City of Alameda and a validation of the important work that is being performed in the San
Francisco District Lab.
The authorization process is another good opportunity for the City to advance its agenda at the
federal level. Authorization bills provide an opportunity for the City to secure helpful legislative
language for a particular priority, or in the case of the surface transportation bill, secure funding
for critical transportation infrastructure.
During the consideration of SAFETEA -LU (2003 to 2005), the City was able to advance two key
priorities as outlined below.
SAFFTEA -L U (P. L. 109-59)
Secured authorizations and funding for the City's top transportation priorities in the final bill:
$1.672 million for planning, design, and construction interrnodal facility project (FY06-
FY09)
FYY06: $3 84,560
FY07: $401,280
FY08: $434
FY09 $451,440
New Starts .Authorization for the City's Fred Guideway Corridor project
Reauthorization of SAFETFA -L U
SAFETBA -LU expired on September 30, 2009; the agencies, programs and activities covered
under this legislation are currently being funded by long -term extension which will expire at the
end of 2010. During the spring of 2009, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
(T&I) initiated actions to reauthorize massive surface transportation bill. In April 2009, the City
presented three funding priorities to Congressman Stark. These projects have the full support of
the Congressman and have been submitted to T &I for consideration. The requests are as
follows:
Fruitvale Avenue Lifeline Bridge, $40,000,000
Bay Farm Off-Street Bicycle Trail, $2,160,000
Broadway /Jackson Interchange Improvements, $40,800,000
The Senate Environment and Public works Committee (EPW) also put out a call for projects in
July. In response, the City submitted their top priority, the Fruitvale Avenue Lifeline Bridge, to
Senators Feinstein and Boxer for consideration.
At present, further consideration of surface transportation bill and these priority projects is
pending as congressional leaders work to identify a funding source for the bill. The
Administration is also working to put their stamp on the bill. Secretary LaHood is expected to
release the Depart ment of Transportation's roadmap for reauthorization sometime this spring.
A TER INFRA sTR UCT URE
The Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) provides authorizations for projects such as
flood protection, environmental restoration, operations and maintenance of waterways and other
projects associated with US Army Corps of Engineers. The WRDA 2007 bill helped to advance
two key priorities for the City.
Water resources Development Act 2007 (P.L. 110 -114)
Secured authorizations for the City's top water related priorities:
Conveyance of the Oakland Inner Harbor Tidal Canal property from the US Anny Corps
of Engineers (Corps) to an entity created by or designated by the City and;
Requiring the Corps to conduct a study of the Fruitvale Bridge to deten nine the most
economic means of maintaining the bridge for future transportation options.
�I
Recognizing the important role of public housing to the City, we actively monitor housing policy
issues and serve a federal liaison to the US Department of Dousing and Urban Development
(DUD). Through our representation, we have secured a total of $1,101,471 owed to the
Authority by HUD:
$636,161 in 2004
$465,310 in 2007
The 2004 funds were especially significant as they prevented 108 families from being cut from
the Section 8 program.
POLICY
In addition, we are actively working with the City to name the Alameda Housing Authority as a
member of IUD's Moving to work Program. This would provide much needed funding
flexibility which in turn would allow the authority to better serve those in need of their
assistance.
��rsmn�s
In February 2009, President Obama signed into law the American Recovery Reinvestment Act
(P. L. 111 -5). The intent of the ARRA legislation is to sti mulate the economy and create jobs.
Over all, ARRA provides $789 billion for a variety of priorities including infrastructure, energy,
healthcare, and tax incentives. To assist the City with competitive funding opportunities ranging
from Community Oriented Policing (COPS) to Energy Efficiency opportunities (EECBG), we
developed a side by side chart which provides information on when and how to access these
funds. This chart was updated on a regular basis and provided a valuable resource to help the
City efficiently navigate the process. we also conducted a series of webinars focusing on
various opportunities within ARRA.
Weekly Grant Notification
Each week we provide the City with information regarding recently announced federal grant
opportunities. we comb through the Federal Register, Grants.gov, and other resources to
identify specific funding that may be of interest to the City. we provide this service to the City
as part of our regular legislative efforts. Should the City decide to pursue any of the grant
opportunities, we are available to assist with those efforts including building congressional
support for the City's application.
ii,
We also actively monitor and weigh in on issues important to the City such as:
Full funding for Community SCI -iIP
Development Block Grants Homeland Security
Eminent Domain video Choice
Full funding for energy Efficiency BR AC
and Conservation Block Grants Other issues as identified by the City
4837723v')
CONSUI -TANT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this 1 st day of July, 2010, by and between CITY OF
ALAMEDA., a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City and Rolland Knight,
LLP, a Washington D.C. corporation, whose address is 2099 Pennsylvania Avenue IOW, Suite
loo, Washington D.C. 20006 -6801, hereinafter referred to as "Consultant is made with
reference to the following
RFCTTAT.!�-
A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws
of the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted
under the statutes of the State of California and the Charter of the City.
B, Consultant is specially trained, experienced and competent to perform the special
services which will be required by this Agreement; and
C. Consultant possesses the skill, experience, ability, background, certification and
knowledge to provide the services described in this Agreement on the terms and conditions
described herein.
D. City and Consultant desire to enter into an agreement for federal advocacy
services upon the terms and conditions herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as
follows
1. TERM
The term of this Agreement shall commence on the 1st day of July, 2010, and shall
terminate on the 30th day of June, 2011, unless terminated earlier as set forth herein.
i i
Consultant shall perform each and every service set forth in Exhibit "A," which is
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
3. COMPENSATION TO CONSULTANT
Consultant shall be compensated for services performed pursuant to this Agreement in
the amount set forth in Exhibit "B," which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference. Payment shall be made by checks drawn on the treasury of the City, to be taken from
the City Manager's Office fund.
4. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE:
Consultant and City agree that time is of the essence r egarding the performance of this
Agreement.
5. STAND OF
City Council
Exhibit 2 to
Agenda Item #4-C
06 -15 -1®
Consultant agrees to perform all services hereunder in a manner commensurate with the
prevailing standards of like professionals in the San Francisco Bay Area and agrees that all
services shall be performed by qualified and experienced personnel who are not employed by the
City nor have any contractual relationship with City.
6. INDEPENDENT PARTIES
City and Consultant intend that the relationship between them created by this Agreement
is that of employer- independent contractor. The manner and means of conducting the work are
under the control of Consultant, except to the extent they are limited by statute, rule or regulation
and the express terms of this Agreement. No civil service status or other right of employment
will be acquired by virtue of Consultant's services. None of the benefits provided by City to its
employees, including but not limited to, unemployment insurance, workers' compensation plans,
vacation and sick leave are available from City to Consultant, its employees or agents.
Reductions shall not be made for any state or federal taxes, FICA. payments, PERS payments, or
other purposes normally associated with an employer-employee relationship from any fees due
Consultant. Payments of the above items, if required, are the responsibility of Consultant.
6. IMMIGRATION REFORM AND CONTROL ACT IRLA
Consultant assumes any and all responsibility for verifying the identity and employment
autborization of all of his /her employees performing work hereunder, pursuant to all applicable
IRCA or other federal, or state rules and regulations. Consultant shall indemnify and hold City
harmless from and against any loss, damage, liability, costs or expenses arising front any
noncompliance of this provision by Consultant.
7. NON-DISCRIMINATION:
Consistent with City's policy that harassment and discrimination are unacceptable
employer /employee conduct, Consultant agrees that harassment or discrimination directed
toward a job applicant, a City employee, or a citizen by Consultant or Consultant's employee or
subcontractor on the basis of race, religious creed, color national origin, ancestry, handicap,
disability, marital status, pregnancy, sex, age, or sexual orientation will not be tolerated.
Consultant agrees that any and all violations of this provision shall constitute a material breach
of this Agreement.
8. HOLD H
Indemnification
Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City, its City Council, boards,
commissions, officials, employees, and volunteers ("Indemnitees from and against any and all
loss, damages, liability, claims, suits, costs and expenses whatsoever, including reasonable
attorneys' fees "Claims arising from or in any manner connected to Consultant's negligent act
or omission, whether alleged or actual, regarding performance of services or work conducted or
performed pursuant to this Agreement. If Claims are filed against Indernitees which allege
negligence on behalf of the Consultant, Consultant shall have no right of reimbursement against
Indemnitees for the costs of defense even if negligence is not found on the part of Consultant.
However, Consultant shall not be obligated to indemnify Indemnitees from Claims arising from
the sole or active negligence or willful misconduct of Indemnitees.
Indemnification For Claims for Professional Liabilit
As to Claims for professional liability only, Consultant's obligation to defend Indemnitees (as set
forth above) is limited to the extent to which its professional liability insurance policy will
provide such defense costs.
9. INSURANCE
On or before the commencement of the ten of this Agreement, Consultant shall furnish
City with certificates showing the type, amount, class of operations covered, effective dates and
dates of expiration of insurance coverage in compliance with paragraphs 10A, B, C, D and E.
Such certificates, which do not limit Consultant's indemnification, shall also contain substantially
the following statement: "Should any of the above insurance covered by this certificate be
canceled or coverage reduced before the expiration date thereof, the insurer affording coverage
shall provide thirty (30) days' advance written notice to the City of Alameda by certified mail,
Attention: Risk Manager." It is agreed that Consultant shall maintain in force at all times during
the performance of this Agreement all appropriate coverage of insurance required by this
Agreement with an insurance company that is acceptable to Ci and licensed to do insurance
business in the State of California. Endorsements naming the City as additional insured shall be
submitted with the insurance certificates.
A. COVERAGE
Consultant shall maintain the following insurance coverage:
(1) Workers' Comp ensation:
Statutory coverage as required by the State of California.
Liabi��
Commercial general liability coverage in the following minimum limits:
Bodily Injury: $500,000
each occurrence
$100
aggregate all other
Property Damage: $1 00,000 each occurrence
$250,000 aggregate
If submitted, combined single limit policy with aggregate limits in the
amounts of $1,000,000 will be considered equivalent to the required
minimum limits shown above.
(3) Automotive
Comprehensive automotive liability coverage in the following minimum
limits:
Bodily Injury: $500,000 each occurrence
Property Damage: $100 000 each occurrence
or
Combined Single Limit: $500,000 each occurrence
(4) Professional Liabili
Professional liability insurance which includes coverage for the
professional acts, errors and omissions of Consultant in the amount of at
least $1,000,000.
B. SUBROGATION WAIVER
Consultant agrees that in the event of loss due to any of the perils for which he /she has
agreed to provide comprehensive general and automotive liability insurance, Consultant shall
look solely to his/her insurance for recovery. Consultant hereby grants to City, on behalf of any
insurer providing comprehensive general and automotive liability insurance to either Consultant
or City with respect to the services of Consultant herein, a waiver of any right to subrogation
which any such insurer of said Consultant may acquire against City by virtue of the payment of
any loss under such insurance.
C. FAILURE TO SECURE
If Consultant at any time during the terrn hereof should fail to secure or maintain the
foregoing insurance, City shall be permitted to obtain such insurance in the Consultant's name or
as an agent of the Consultant and shall be compensated by the Consultant for the costs of the
insurance premiums at the maximum rate permitted by law and computed from the date written
notice is received that the premiums have not been paid.
D. ADDITIONAL INSURED
City, its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, employees and volunteers shall
be named as an additional insured under all insurance coverages, except any professional liability
insurance, required by this Agreement. The naming of an additional insured shall not affect any
recovery to which such additional insured would be entitled under this policy if not named as
such additional insured. An additional insured named herein shall not be held liable for any
premium, deductible portion of any loss, or expense of any nature on this policy or any extension
thereof. Any other insurance held by an additional insured shall not be required to contribute
anything toward any loss or expense covered by the insurance provided by this policy.
E. SI.IFFICIENCY OF INSURANCE
The insurance limits required by City are not represented as being sufficient to protect
Consultant. Consultant is advised to confer with Consultant's insurance broker to determine
adequate coverage for Consultant.
Consultant warrants that it is not a conflict of interest for Consultant to perform the
services required by this Agreement. Consultant may be required to fill out a conflict of interest
forin if the services provided under this Agreement require Consultant to make certain
governmental decisions or serve in a staff capacity as defined in Title 2, Division 6, Section
18 700 of the California Code of Regulations.
11. PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS
Consultant shall not assign, sublease, hypothecate, or transfer this Agreement, or any
interest therein, directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise, without prior written
consent of City. Any attempt to do so without said consent shall be null and void, and any
assignee, sublessee, hypothecate or transferee shall acquire no right or interest by reason of such
attempted assignment, hypothecation or transfer. However, claims for money by Consultant
from City under this Agreement may be assigned to a bank., trust company or other financial
institution without prior written consent. written notice of such assignment shall be promptly
furnished to City by Consultant.
The sale, assignn� ent, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding
capital stock of Consultant, or of the interest of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate
member or cotenant, if Consultant is a partnership or joint venture or syndicate or cotenancy,
which shall result in changing the control of Consultant, shall be construed as an assignment of
this Agreement. Control means fifty percent (50 or more of the voting power of the
corporation.
Unless prior written consent from City is obtained, only those people and subcontractors
whose names and resumes are attached to this Agreement shall be used in the performance of
this Agreement.
In the event that Consultant employs subcontractors, such subcontractors shall be
required to furnish proof of workers' compensation insurance and shall also be required to carry
general, automobile and professional liability insurance in reasonable conformity to the
insurance carried by Consultant. In addition, any work or services subcontracted hereunder shall
be subject to each provision of this Agreement.
13. PERMITS AND LICENSES
Consultant, at his/her sole expense, shall obtain and maintain during the term of this
Agreement, all appropriate permits, certificates and licenses including, but not limited to, a City
Business License, that may be required in connection with the performance of services
hereunder.
14. REPORTS
A. Each and every report, draft, work product, reap, record and other document,
hereinafter collectively referred to as "Report reproduced, prepared or caused to be prepared by
Consultant pursuant to or in connection with this Agreement, shall be the exclusive property of
City. Consultant shall not copyright any Report required by this Agreement and shall execute
appropriate documents to assign. to City the copyright to Reports created pursuant to this
Agreement. Any Report, information and data acquired or required by this Agreement shall
become the property of City, and all publication rights are reserved to City.
B. All Reports prepared by Consultant may be used by City in execution or
implementation of:
(1) The original Project for which Consultant was hired;
(2) Completion of the original Project by others;
(3) Subsequent additions to the original project; and /or
(4) other City projects as appropriate.
C. Consultant shall, at such time and in such fonr as City may require, furnish
reports concerning the status of services required under this Agreement.
D. All Reports required to be provided by this Agreement shall be printed on
recycled paper. All Reports shall be copied on both sides of the paper except for one original,
which shall be single sided.
E. No Report, information, or other data given to or prepared or assembled by
Consultant pursuant to this .Agreement shall be made available to any individual or organization
by Consultant without prior approval by City.
15. RECORDS
Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales, costs,
expenses, receipts and other such information required by City that relate to the performance of
services under this Agreement.
Consultant shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to
pen an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible.
Consultant shall provide free access to such books and records to the representatives of City or
its designees at all proper times, and gives City the right to examine and audit same, and to make
transcripts therefrom as necessary, and to allow inspection of all work, data, documents,
proceedings and activities related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting
documents, shall be kept separate from other documents and records and shall be maintained for
a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment.
If supplemental examination or audit of the records is necessary due to concerns raised by
City's preliminary examination or audit of records, and the City's supplemental examination or
audit of the records discloses a failure to adhere to appropriate internal financial controls, or
other breach of contract or failure to act in good faith, then Consultant shall reimburse City for
all reasonable costs and expenses associated with the supplemental examination or audit.
16. NOTICES
All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Agreement shall be
given in writing and conclusively shall be deemed served when delivered personally or on the
second business day after the deposit thereof in the United States Mail, postage prepaid,
registered or certified, addressed as hereinafter
provided.
City at:
All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from Consultant to City shall be addressed to
City of Alameda
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda CA 94501
Attention: Lisa Goldman, City Manager's office
All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from City to Consultant shall be addressed to
Consultant at:
Rich Gold
Holland Knight, LLP
2099 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
Suite 100
Washington IBC, 20006 -6801
17. TERMIN ANION
In the event Consultant fails or refuses to perform any of the provisions hereof at the time
and in the manner required hereunder, Consultant shall be deemed in default in the perfon nance
of this Agreement. If such default is not cured within a period of two (2) days after receipt by
Consultant from City of written notice of default, specifying the nature of such default and the
steps necessary to cure such default, City may terminate the Agreement forthwith by giving to
the Consultant written notice thereof.
City shall have the option, at its sole discretion and without cause, of terminating this
Agreement by giving seven (7) days' prior written notice to Consultant as provided herein. Upon
termination of this Agreement, each party shall pay to the other party that portion of
compensation specified in this Agreement that is earned and unpaid prior to the effective date of
termination.
18. COMPLIANCES
Consultant shall comply with all state or federal laws and all ordinances, rules and
regulations enacted or issued by City.
CONFLICT O LAW:
This .Agreement shall be interpreted under, and enforced by the laws of the State of
California excepting any choice of law rules which may direct the application of laws of another
jurisdiction. The Agreement and obligations of the parties are subject to all valid laws, orders,
rules, and regulations of the authorities having jurisdiction over this Agreement (or the
successors of those authorities.)
Any suits brought pursuant to this Agreement shall be filed with the courts of the County
of Alameda, State of California.
20. ADVERTISEMENT:
Consultant shall not post, exhibit, display or allow to be posted, exhibited, displayed any
signs, advertising, show bills, lithographs, posters or cards of any kind pertaining to the services
performed under this Agreement unless prior written approval has been secured from City to do
otherwise.
1. WAIVER
A waiver by City of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained herein shall
not be deeded to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the sane or any other term, covenant,
or condition contained herein, whether of the same or a different character.
This Agreement represents the full and complete understanding of every kind or nature
whatsoever between the parties hereto, and all preliminary negotiations and agreements of
whatsoever kind or nature are merged herein. No verbal agreement or implied covenant shall be
held to vary the provisions hereof. Any modification of this Agreement will be effective only by
written execution signed by both City and Consultant.
Each provision and clause required by law to be inserted into the Agreement shall be
deemed to be enacted herein, and the Agreement shall be read and enforced as though each were
included herein. if through mistake or otherwise, any such provision is not inserted or is not
correctly inserted, the Agreement shall be amended to make such insertion on application by
either party.
2 3 CAPTIONS
The captions in this Agreement are for convenience only, are not a part of the Agreement
and in no way affect, limit or amplify the terms or provisions of this Agreement.
24. NON-APPROPRIATION/DEBT LIMITATION
In the event City is unable to obtain funding upon this contract for a portion of the
contractual term that straddles two fiscal years, City shall have the right to terminate this contract
at the conclusion of the current fiscal year and shall not be obligated to continue performance
under this agreement. To the extent any remedy in this agreement may conflict with Article XVI
of the California Constitution or any other debt limitation provision of California law applicable
to County, Contractor hereby expressly and irrevocably waives its right to such remedy,
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused the Agreement to be executed on the
day and year first above written.
CONSULTANT
Holland Kni ght, LLP
B 1�
Title h-"A�
CITY OF ALAMEDA
A Municipal Corporation
By: Ann Marie G
Title: Interim City Manager
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL:
By: Lisa Goldman
Title: Deputy City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
TitleM
SCOPE OF SERVICES
I In coordination with the City Manager's office for the City of Alameda, advise the City of
Alameda on potential federal funding that the City or the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) could seek for implementation of redevelopment at
Alameda Point or other locations within the City of Alameda, which may include, but is not
limited to, technology improvements for public safety; transportation planning; transit,
roadway, and pedestrian improvements; streetscape projects; the renovation of historic
municipal buildings such as the Carnegie Building, the Veterans' Building, the "o" Club,
gym and pool at Alameda Point;. and aid in appropriation of such funding. In addition,
Holland Knight will assist City efforts to restore federal funding for the City's Section 8
and CDBG programs and other housing- related issues.
2. Prepare a written report that sets forth, in reasonable detail, the comprehensive lobbying
strategy necessary to achieve the funding goals set forth in Section I above. Such written
report shall, among other provisions, identify any unique issues /attributes that relate to the
City of Alameda that could affect the likelihood /success of achieving the funding goals set
forth in Section I above. Such report shall be updated quarterly during the relationship.
3. obtain information and data from the state and federal government on matters of interest to
the City of Alameda that relate to the goals set forth in Section I above.
4. Advise the City of Alameda concerning any natters that may be of interest to the City of
Alameda with respect to the goals set forth in Section I above.
5. Secure and furnish such detailed information as may be available that relates to the goals set
forth in Section I above.
6. .Assist and educate City of Alameda/ARRA's federal and state legislative delegation with
respect to the goals set forth in Section I above.
7. Provide non -legal advice to the City of Alarneda City Manager's office regarding
appearances by City of Al aneda/ARRA officials and staff before federal and state agencies
relating to the goals set forth in Section I above.
8. Arrange appointments as directed by the City Manager as necessary with state and federal
legislative or administrative representatives and City of A.larneda/ARR.A representatives as
requested relating to the goals set forth in Section I above.
i.
COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES
Consultant shall be compensated for the services performed as set forth in Exhibit A in an
amount not to exceed $96,000, paid in 12 equal monthly installments. Consultant shall submit
monthly invoices not to exceed $8,000 per month. Invoices to be provided to the City Manager's
Office within 10 days of start of month for previous month's work.
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Ann Marie Gallant
Interim City Manager
Date: June 15, 2010
Re: Adopt a Lotion Authorizing the Interim City Manager to Execute a Joint Use
Agreement with the Alameda Boys and Girls Club in order to Comply with
the Application Guidelines under the Measure WW Grant Program
BACKGROUND
In November 2008, the voters approved Measure WW, which provides funding on a per
capita basis to cities in Alameda and Contra Costa counties. The program is
administered by the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD). On February 3, 2010,
the City Council adopted a motion authorizing the City to submit a grant application on
behalf of the Alameda Boys and Girls Club to EBRPD in the amount of $2 million to
assist with the construction of their new Mouth Development Center. A subsequent
revision of the grant guidelines by EBRPD in February 2010 reduced the total amount
available to $1 million.
DISCUSSION
In order to comply with the established guidelines for the application, the City and the
Alameda Boys and Girls Club need to enter into a joint use agreement detailing the
terms and conditions for use of the facility. Staff has conducted a number of meetings
with representatives of the Boys and Girls Club and has reached mutual agreement on
the document. The agreement, which is included as Exhibit 1, addresses liability
concerns as well as defined uses for both parties. The City is guaranteed .use Monday
through Friday, 7:30 p.m. to 10 :00 p.m., year round, as well as designated times on
Saturday and Sunday evenings. Additional time may be available throughout the year
and may be scheduled in accordance with the terms outlined in the Facility Scheduling
Section.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Funding for the Alameda Boys and Girls Club project is provided through Leasure WW
and there is impact on City funds as a result of this action.
City Council
Agenda Item #4-13
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the city Council
RECOMMENDATION
June 15, 2010
Page 2 of 2
Adopt a motion authorizing the city Manager to execute a joint use agreement with the
Alameda Boys and Girls club in order to comply with the application guidelines under
the Measure ww Grant Program.
Respectfully submitted,
I hA 3
Dale Lillard, Director
Alameda Recreation, Parks Golf operations
Exhibit:
1. Joint Use Agreement
cc: Recreation Park commission
COOPERATIVE JOINT USE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF ALAMEDA, THE ALAMEDA BOYS GIRLS
AND THE ALAMEDA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
This Cooperative Joint use Agreement has been prepared by and for the Cit y of
Alameda, the Alameda Boys Girls Club, and the Alameda Unified School District
as a collaborative effort to strengthen and expand recreational services the Cit y of
Alameda.
This Joint Use Agreement "Agreement is entered into as of June 15 2010 by
and between the City of Alameda ("City"), a municipal corporation, the Alameda
Boys Girls Club, Inc. "Club a 501(c) 3 non profit corporation, and the Alameda
Unified school District "District
Whereas Club is the owner of a youth development center consisting of various
recreational and educational facilities and improvements currently under
construction on a portion of the real property commonly referred to as the
Woodstock Child Development Campus, which real property is owned b y District
and leased to Club under a 99 year Ground Lease, and
Whereas Club and District previously have signed a joint use agreement setting
forth their respective rights and obligations to use certain of the Improvements; and
Whereas the Bast Bay Regional Park Districts (EBRPD) Measure WVV, which was
approved by voters in November 2008, provides each city in Alameda and Contra
Costa Counties with a per capita allocation of funding.
Whereas, the City is participating in the funding of the construction of the
Improvements by submitting an application to BBRPD for Measure WW fundin g in
an amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) to assist in paying a portion of the
construction costs "EBRPD Funds); and
Whereas, City, Club and District desire to jointly use certain of the Improvements
for community recreational and educational purposes.
Now, therefore, for and in consideration of the collaborative agreements herein
contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. TERM AND COMMENCEMENT
ENCEMENT
Subject to and conditioned upon the final approval and disbursement of the
E BRPD Funds, this Agreement shall commence once the Improvements have
been constructed and a Final Certificate of Occupancy has.be.e.n..issued for their
r
use. The Agreement shall continue for a period of twenty -five (25) years following
the Commencement Date.
2. FACILITIES COVERED
The term "Facilities" as used herein shall mean all Improvements with the following
exceptions: Staff offices and Health screening Clinic.
3. PERMITTED USES OF FACILITIES
A. District shall be entitled to the use of the Facilities 7 :30 a.m. to
330 p.m. for public school and school related educational and
recreational activities during school hours during the school term,
excluding summer school, school holidays, summer, spring and
holiday breaks, and any other such time that schools are not in
regular session as more particularly set forth in the joint use
agreement between Club and District
B. Club shall operate the Improvements before and after school
hours, weekends, holidays, and vacation periods on a schedule of
its own determination.
C. Club reserves the right to extend usage of the Improvements to
other community partners, and other entities as it sees fit in order
to provide comprehensive youth services to the community. such
uses shall not interfere with City's permitted use of the Facilities.
D. City shall use the Facilities to offer City- sponsored recreational
programs for youth or adults. City provided staff or volunteers
participating in programs held at the Facilities must have
completed a background check at both the state and Federal
level including fingerprinting and a sexual predator review.
E. City may operate programs using its own staff or may operate
programs by contracting with another entity, including but not
limited to, Club staff. Entities involved in such contract
arrangements shall be subject to the restrictions listed in section
3D and listed in any other part of this Agreement.
4. SCHEDULING USE OF FACILITIES
A. City, Club and District shall develop a master schedule for use of
the Facilities. City, Club and District shall schedule quarterly
meetings unless alternate meeting times are mutually agreed
upon. At these meetings all parties shall review and evaluate the
status and condition of jointly used Facilities, and to modify or
confirm the upcoming quarter's schedule. The Parties shall
provide summary minutes of these quarterly meetings.
B. City, Club and District shall agree to use best efforts to provide a
minimum of seven (7) calendar days notice when canceling
approved Facilities use dates.
C. city shall be granted and guaranteed a minimum use of the
Facilities for the sole purpose of providing programs to the
community. The guaranteed hours and space allocation for City
program use shall be equal to fifteen percent (15%) of total hours
Facilities are open for use by any party based on the EBRPD
guidelines specified in the amendment to pleasure WVV Local
Grants Program Guidelines. The program hours available to City
shall include the hours of 7:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. on weekdays
y
and 3:00 p.m. to 9.00 p.m. on Sundays. The Saturday hours will
consist of three ten creek blocks in the fall, spring, and summer
of 9.00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. with the remaining Saturday hours
consisting of 3:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. The city will recognize that
Alameda Youth Basketball will have priority use of the site during
the printer months with the city retaining the right to schedule
around their use. other city program hours may be available
upon mutual agreement of club and District and shall be included
in the minimum use of City. club reserves the right to use the
facility or allow other organizations to use the facility on weekday
and /or weekend evenings based upon prior approval by the
Scheduling Committee if and only if such use does not create a
conflict with city's use.
5. OBLIGATION OF CLUB
During the term of this Agreement, club hereby covenants and agrees to the
following:
A. Club shall maintain the Facilities (which specifically do not
include, Woodstock Park), in a state of good repair. Provide day-
to -day maintenance and janitorial services including cleaning and
stocking restrooms.
B. Club shall appoint an employee with whom city, or an y other
authorized agent of city, may confer regarding the terms of this
Agreement.
C. club shall have the right and obligation to make emergency
repairs to Facilities in a timely manner.
0. OBLIGATION OF CITY
A. city shall appoint an employee with whom club, or any authorized
agent of club, may confer regarding the terms of this Agreement.
J
B. City shall provide personnel necessary for the direction or
supervision of activities sponsored by City at the Facilities.
C. City shall enforce Club rules and policies on behavior and
comportment when using Facilities. Club shall provide City with
rules, regulations, and policies for Facilities attached as Exhibit A.
D. City shall be responsible for the payment of lighting of the facility
during their use. The Club will bill the City annually for such use
based on the actual hourly charge as determined by Alameda
Municipal Power (AMP).
7. ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS
A. To the extent required under the Ground Lease, Club shall obtain
prior written consent of District to make any alterations, additions
or improvements to the Facilities. Club understands and agrees
that such alterations, additions, or improvements may be required
to comply with applicable State standards.
B. Any such alterations, additions, or improvements shall be at the
sole expense of the Club.
LI ABILITIES 8. IND EMNIFICATI O I
A. Club shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its officers,
agents, employees, representatives, and volunteers from damage
to property and for injury to or death of any person a.nd from all
claims, demands, actions, liability, or damages of any kind or
nature arising from or in connection with activities or ro rams
p g
sponsored by City at the Facilities, (2) Club's failure to maintain
the Facilities in the manner required under this Agreement except
y exce p t
those Liabilities which arise as a result of sole negligence b City.
B. District will indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its
officers, agents, employees, representatives, and volunteers from
damage to property and for injury to or death of any person and
from all claims, demands, actions, liability, or damages of any
kind or nature arising out of or in connection with District activities
or programs at Facilities, except those which arise out of the
primary negligence of City.
C. City will indemnify, defend and hold harmless District, its officers,
agents, employees, representatives, and volunteers from damage
to property and for injury to or death of any person and from all
claims, demands, actions, liability, or damages of any kind or
nature arising out of or in Connection with City activities or
programs at Facilities, except those which arise out of the primary
negligence of District.
9. ASSIGNMENTS AND SUBLEASE
A. Club may enter into agreements of use with groups for
recreational and educational purposes outside of the tines and
uses by City. Such agreements for use are subject to and
deemed to incorporate by reference all provisions of this
Agreement.
B. club may charge a fair and reasonable fee or accept in -kind
services from non -city permitted users to offset the costs
associated with the use of Facilities. Any fees generated for use
of the Facilities shall be retained by club.
C. Neither city nor club may assign or transfer this Agreement, or
any part thereof, without the written consent of all parties to this
Agreement.
10. N OTICFS
A. All notices, statements, demands, requests, consents, approvals,
authorizations, appointments, or designations hereunder by either
party to the other shall be in writing and delivered by personal
delivery, registered or certified mail, first class mail, or reputable
overnight carrier. Such notice shall be deemed given and served
upon the date of personal delivery; or if delivered by certified or
registered mail upon the date of delivery or refusal of delivery; or
if delivered by first class mail three (3) days after depositing in th
United States mail, postage prepaid and properly addressed; or if
delivered by reputable overnight courier one day after deposit,
with said courier. The parties' respective addresses for Notice
are set forth below. Any party may change its address for notice
by written Notice delivered in accordance herewith.
If to CITY:
City of Alameda
2253 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
If to CLUB
Alameda Boys Girls club
P.O. Box 1059
Alameda, CA 94501
Attn: city Manager
If to District:
Alameda Unified School District
2200 central Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
Attn Executive Director
r
Attn: Superintendent
11. TERMINATION
This Agreement is binding for twenty -five (25) years from the Commencement
Date and may not be voluntarily terminated during the term hereof by any party of
this Agreement without the written permission of the EBRPD with at least two (2)
years written notice or upon termination of the existing ground lease between
District and Club.
12. REFUND FOR NON COMPLIANCE
In the event the Club should not comply with this Agreement or withdraw from its
existing ground lease, the Club shall refund one million dollars ($1,000.000) to the
City to be used for park and recreation purposes.
13. SEVERABILITY AND APPLICABLE LAW
Whenever possible, each provision of this Agreement shall be interpreted in such a
manner as to be effective and valid under applicable lave, but if any provision of this
Agreements declared invalid under applicable law, such provision shall be
ineffective to the extent of such prohibition or invalidity, without invalidatin g the
remainder of such provision, or the remaining provisions of this Agreement. This
Agreement has been made and entered into in the state of California and the laws
of said state shall govern the validity and interpretation hereof and the
performance hereunder by the parties herein.
14.ACREE111ENT
This Agreement sets forth the entire Agreement between the parties with respect
to the Facilities. All parties must in the form of a written amendment agree to an y
modifications.
15. WAIVER
The failure of city, club or District to insist upon strict performance of an y of the
terms, conditions, or covenants in this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of
any right or remedy which City, District or club may have and shall not be deemed
a waiver of any right or remedy for a subsequent breach or default of the terms
conditions, or covenants herein contained.
16. BI DING EFFECT
This Agreement and all the terms, covenants, conditions, and agreements herein
contained shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and
their respective successors.
6
17. GOVERNING LAW/ ATTORNEYS' FEESNENUE
This Agreement shall be governed and construed under the laws of the State of
California and the venue shall be Alameda County California, In the event that
any legal action or proceeding is instituted by any party to this Agreement to
interpret or enforce the Agreement or otherwise arising hereunder, the revailin
p g
party in such action shall be entitled to an award of its reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs in addition to any other relief awarded.
7
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this AGREEMENT has been dul approved b the CITY,
CLUB and DISTRICT. The Parties executin this a have the authorization
and authorit to bind their respective entities.
Cit of Alameda
(insert t name
Ma Cit of Alameda
Alameda Bo Girls Club
B
(insert y ped name)
President, Board of Directors
Dated 2010
Alameda Unified chool District
B
V rsten Vital
Superintendent
Dated: 6—/ /2010
A P rO V I'D, o r in
"Af
Dated.- q12010
al
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Ma and
Members of the Cit Council
From: Ann Marie Gallant
Interim Cit Mana
Date: June 15, 2010
Re: Award a Contract in the Amount of $95,110, Includin Contin to
PSOMAS Consultin Civil En for an Assessment of Existin Storm
Drain Pump Stations, No. P.W. 05-10-13
BACKGROUND
In Ma 2010, the Public Works Department issued a Re for Proposal (RFP) and
conducted a selection process to choose a consultant to assess the Cit existin storm
drain pump stations. The consultant will assess existin and future storm drain capacit
needs, and identif improvements re to meet current re standards. In
addition, the consultant will measure dissolved ox (DO) levels durin Jul and Au
and recommend corrective action(s) should DO levels exceed the current Count of
Alameda Municipal Stormwater permit re
DISCUSSION
To solicit the maximum number of proposals, notification of the RFP was sent to all of the
q ualified civil en consultants on the cit consultin list. A notice was also
published in the Alameda Journal and on the Cit website. The Cit received three
proposals. The list of proposers includes:
Consultant
Location
Proposal Amount
PSOMAS
Walnut Creek
$86
Shaaf Wheeler
San Francisco
$92,346
BKF
Redwood --City
1 $119 5 677
Individual presentations and interviews were held on Ma 18, 2010, and Public Works staff
determined that PSOMAS was best q ualified for the work based on experience,
capabilities, understandin of the issues, cost, and staffin availabilit Staff proposes to
award a contract to PSOMAS, for a total amount of $95,110, includin contin A
cop of the contract is on file in the Cit Clerk's office.
Cit Council
A Item #4-E
06-15-10
Honorable Ma and
Members of the Cit Council
FINANCIAL IMPACT
June 15, 2010
Pa 2 of 2
The pro is bud in the Capital Improvement Pro (Project No. 90-46), with
monies allocated from the Urban Runoff Clean Water funds.
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This action does not affect the Municipal Code.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
In accordance with the California Environmental Qualit Act (CEQA), this project is
Statutoril Exempt under CEQA Guidelines, Section 15262, Feasibilit and Plannin
Studies.
RECOMMENDATION
Award a contract in the amount of $95,110, includin contin to PSOMAS
Consultin Civil En for an assessment of existin storm drain pump stations, No.
P.W. 05-10-13.
Approved as to funds and account,
V-4
Evel Leun
Interim Supervisin Accountant
Exhibit:
1. Contract on file in the Cit Clerk's office)
CITY OF AL.AMEDA
Memorandum
To. Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Ann Marie Gallant
Interim City Manager
Date. June 15, 2010
Re: Award a Contract in the Amount of $93,880, Including Contingencies, to Fehr
Engineering for Design Services for the Seger Pump Station Backup
Generator Project Igo. P.W. 04 -10 -10
BACKGROUND
In April 2010, the Public Works Department issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) and
conducted a selection process to choose a consultant to provide design services and
construction support for the installation and full operation of permanent backup generators
at specified sanitary surer pump stations. The professional services. to be provided
include the preparation of engineering plans, specifications, and detailed.estimate(s),
project management assistance to review future contractor design submittals, change
orders, and Requests for Information, and site inspections prior to and during construction.
DISCUSSION
To solicit the maximum number of proposals, notification of the RFP was sent to all of the
qualified civil engineering consultants on the City's consulting list. The City received two
proposals. The list of proposers includes:
Consultant
Location Proposal Amount
Fehr Engineering
Watsonville $81,200
BKF
Redwood City $92
Individual presentations and interviews were held on May 20, 2010, and Public Works staff
determined that Fehr Engineering was best qualified for the work based on experience,
capabilities, understanding of the issues, cost, and staffing availability. Staff proposes to
award a contract to Fehr Engineering, for a total amount of $93,380, including
contingencies. A copy of the contract is on file in the City Clerk's office.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The project is budgeted in the Capital Improvement Program (Project No. 90 -40 with
monies allocated from the Seger Enterprise funds.
City Council
Agenda Item ##4-F
Honorable Ma and June 15, 2010
Members of the Cit Council Pa 2 of 2
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This action does not affect the Municipal Code.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
In accordance with the California Environmental Qualit Act (CEQA), this project is
Statutoril Exempt under CEQA Guidelines, Section 15262, Feasibilit and Plannin
Studies, and Section 15301(c), Existin Facilities.
RECOMMENDATION
Award a contract in the amount of $93,380, Includin contin to Fehr En
for desi services for the sewer pump station backup g enerator project, No. P.W. 04-10
10.
Respectfu ubmitted,
920=
Exhibit:
1. Contract on file in the Cit Clerk's office)
CITY of ALA EDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Ann Marie Gallant
Interim City Manager
Gate: June 15, 2010
Re: Award a contract in the Amount of $147,552, Including Sales Tax and
Contingencies, to Resource and Design, Inc., for Furnishings for the
Neighborhood Libra Im rovernent Project No. P.W. 10 -09 -29
BACKGROUND
On April 0, 2010, the City council awarded a construction contract to Sausal
Corporation to remodel the West End and Bay Farm Island neighborhood libraries. On
May 4, 2010, the City Council authorized a Request for Bids (RFB) for the furniture
packages, so that the furniture and equipment will be ready to install when the
remodeling is completed.
DISCUSSION
To solicit the maximum number of bids, notification of the RFB was sent to all of the
qualified furniture vendors on the city's list. A notice was also published in the
Alameda Journal and on the city's website. The City received two bids. The list of
bidders, from highest to lowest total cost, is as follows:
Bidder
Location
fro oral Amount
Resource Design, Inc.
San Francisco, CA
$'140,525.31
F One Workplace
Oakland, CA
$'148,079.09
Staff proposes to award a contract to Resource Design, Inc., for a total amount of
$147,552, including sales tax and a five percent contingency. A copy of the contract is
on file in the city Clerk's office.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The funds for this project are budgeted in the Library Department's accounts for capital
Improvement Program (05 -05). The Friends of the Alameda Free Library will be
donating $100,000 towards the purchase of the furnishings.
City council
Agenda Item #4-G
Honorable Mayor and June 15, 2010
Members of the City Council Page 2 of 2
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This action does not affect the Municipal Code.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the neighborhood
library improvement program is Categorically Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section
1 5301(a), Existing Facilities Exterior /Interior Alterations; Section 15301(e), Alterations
to Existing Structures of 2,500 Square Feet or Less; and Section 15331, N istorical
Resource Restoration /Rehabilitation.
RECOMMENDATION
Award a contract in the amount of $147,552, including sales tax and contingencies, to
Resource and Design, Inc., for furnishings for the neighborhood library improvement
project, No. P.W. 10- 09 -29.
r
/-Jane Chisaki
Library Director
Approved as to funds and account,
Evelyn Leung
Interim Supervising Accountant
MTN:JC:gc
CITY of ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Ann Marie Gallant
Interim City Manager
Date: June 15, 2010
Re: Award a Contract in the Amount of $227,853, Including Contingencies, to
Golden Bay Construction, Inc., for Culvert Reconstruction at Various
Locations No. P.W. 02 -10 -04
BACKGROUND
On April 20, 2010, the City Council adopted plans and specifications and authorized a call
for bids for culvert reconstruction at various locations, No. P.W. 02- 10 -04. The proposed
project consists of reconstructing the culverts at four intersections: Second Street at Brush
Street, Washington Street at Pearl Street, Buena Vista Avenue at Moreland Drive, and
Yosemite Avenue at Cambridge Avenue.
DISCUSSION
To solicit the maximum number of bids and most competitive price, plans and
specifications were provided to 19 separate builders exchanges throughout the Bay Area.
A notice of bid was also published in the Alameda Journal. Two contractors submitted
bids, and the bids were opened on May 21, 2010. The list of qualified bidders, from lowest
to highest total project cost, is as follows:
Bidder
Location
Base Bid
Golden Bay Construction, Inc.
Ha ard, CA
$198
Sposeto En ineerin Inc.
Union City, CA
$208,928
Public Works staff contacted several references provided by the low bidder and received
positive feedback about the requirements and quality and timeliness of their work. Staff
proposes to award a contract to Golden Bay Construction, Inc., for a total amount of
$22',853, including contingencies. A copy of the contract is on file in the City Clerk` s
office.
city council
Agenda item #4. -H
064540
Honorable Nagar and
Members of the City Council
FINANCIAL IMPACT
June 15, 2014
Page 2 of 2
The funds for this project are budgeted in the Capital Improvement Program (90 -06), with
monies allocated from the Urban Runoff Clean Water fund. No General Fund monies are
required.
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This action does not affect the Alameda Municipal Code.
Akf
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this project is
Categorically Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(c), Existing Facilities.
RECOMMENDATION
Award a contract in the amount of $227,853, Including contingencies, to Golden Bay
Construction, Inc., for culvert reconstruction at various locations, No. P.W. 02- 10-04.
Exhibit:
1. Contract (on file in the City Clerk's office)
CITY of ALA .:DA
Memorandum
To: honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Ann Marie Gallant
Interim city [Manager
Date: June 15, 2010
Re: Appropriate $300,000 in community Development Block Grant Funds and
Award a contract in the Amount of $2,731 ,305, including Contingencies,
to Gallagher Burk, Inc., for the Repair and Resurfacing of certain
Streets, Phase 29, No. P.W. 02- 09w-06
BACKGROUND
On May 4, 2010, the City council adopted plans and specifications and authorized a call
for bids for the repair and resurfacing of certain streets, phase 29, No. P.W. 02- 09 -05.
The project will reconstruct failed pavement areas and resurface approximately 4.5
miles of street, using a combination of asphalt concrete (AC), rubberized asphalt
concrete (RAC), slurry seal (SS), and crack sealing. In addition, the project will crack
seal streets approximately two miles of streets to improve the pavement surface.
DISCUSSION
To solicit the m aximum number of bids and most competitive price, plans and
specifications were provided to 17 separate builders exchanges throughout the Bay
Area and the eBidboard website. A notice of bid was also published in the Alameda
Journal. one contractor submitted a bid, and the bid was opened on June 2, 2010. The
bid is as follows:
Biter
Location
Bid Amount
Gallagher Burk, Inc.
Oakland, California
$2,3 75,100
Public Works staff has certified that the apparent lour bidder has made a concerted
good faith effort towards meeting the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise {DBE) goal
and the Section 3 resident outreach efforts, as required by the Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) funding. Staff also contacted several references provided by the
low bidder and received positive feedback about the requirements, quality, and
timeliness of their work. In addition, the bid is below the engineer's estimate of
$2,x'87,900, and is considered a competitive bid. Staff proposes to award a contract to
Gallagher Burk, Inc., for a total amount of $2,x'31,385, including contingencies. A
copy of the contract is on file in the city clerk' s office.
City Council
Agenda Item #4 *I
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the city council
FINANCIAL IMPACT
June 15, 2010
Page 2 of 2
The funds for this project are budgeted in the capital Improvement Program (Project
No. 82 -01), with funds available from Measure B, Proposition 11B Local Streets and
Roads (Prop 113), congestion Management Agency Transportation Improvement
Program Funds, Harbor Bay Assessment District (for North Loop road), the Integrated
Waste Recycle Fund (274.1), and a RAC Incentive Grant through CalRecycle. On
September 15, 2009, the City council appropriated $425,000 in Prop 1B funds and
$54,000 in serer funds for additional work under pavement management program. In
addition, a CDBC allocation for Buena Vista Avenue will be available contingent upon
approval of the CDBC funding package. There is no impact to the General Fund.
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This project is consistent with the Waste and Recycling Initiative of the Local Action
Plan for Climate Protection by requiring recycling of 80% of all construction waste and
by installing RAG that contains recycled waste rubber tires.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this project is
Categorically Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(c), Existing Facilities and
Categorically Excluded by Housing and Urban Development Guidelines, Section
58.34.a. Resurfacing.
RECOMMENDATION
Appropriate $300,000 in CDBG funds and award a contract in the amount of
$2,731,305, including contingencies, to Gallagher Burk, Inc., for the repair and
resurfacing of certain streets, phase 29, No. P.W. 02- 09 -00.
Respec subm'tted,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
Approved as to funds and account,
(q
Evelyn Leung
Interim Supervising Accountant
Exhibit:
1. Contract (on file in the City Clerk's office)
cc: watchdog Committee
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Ann Marie Gallant
Interim City Manager
Date: June 15, 2010
Re: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the Interim City Manager to Implement a
Citywide Policy on Integrated Pest Management
The Federal Clean Water Act requires municipalities to protect the quality of .storm water
discharges from storm water drainage and collection systems through the implementation
of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit process. The
California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), San Francisco .Bay Region,
reissued the City's NPDES Permit on October 14, 2000. The Pesticides Toxicity Control
provision of the City's 2000 NPDES Permit requires the City to adopt an Integrated. Pest
Management (IPM) Policy or Ordinance no later than July 1, 2010.
The proposed policy provides both a statement of purpose and a clear set of objectives,
and identifies the affected City departments that use pesticides. The policy outlines
necessary responsibilities and procedures to implement an IPM program and address the
NPDES Permit requirements. Representatives of the affected City departments have
reviewed the proposed policy.
DISCUSSION
The proposed IPM policy provides the framework and direction for affected departments to
develop department specific written operating procedures to address the NPDES Permit
requirements for IPM implementation. Required elements of the IPM policy include
standards to:
Establish written standard operating procedures for the implementation of IPM .by
municipal employees and contractors working on City -owned property, in adherence
with this IPM policy or ordinance.
Report on an annual basis to the California RWQCB, San Francisco Bay Region, on
IPM implementation by showing: trends in quantities and types .of pesticide use.
Ensure that all municipal employees who, within the scope of their duties, apply or
use pesticides that threaten water quality are trained in IPM practices and the City's
IPM policy.
City Council
MA
Agenda Item #44
1
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
June 15, 2010
Page 2 of 3
Hire only IPM- certified contractors or modify contract specifications by July 1, 2010
requiring contractors to implement IPM.
The proposed policy addresses the requirements of the NPDES Permit Pesticides "Toxicity
Control provision. It is applicable to the implementation of routine pest control practices in
all City landscaping maintenance and City -owned structural maintenance efforts. The
policy explicitly states that it shall not be construed as requiring the City of Alameda, a
department, purchaser, or contractor to take any action that conflicts with local, state, or
federal requirements. The responsibility, authority, and discretion for implementation of the
requirements of the policy will be within each affected individual department.
To ensure all affected departments were aware of and could meet the policy requirements,
Public 'Forks staff distributed an administrative draft of the policy to the Public Works
Department, Recreation and Parks Department, Golf Complex, Alameda Municipal Power,
and the Economic Development Department for review and comment. Public Works staff
also provided a follow -up briefing to representatives of the affected and interested
departments. The briefing provided a review of the policy requirements and on-line and
hardcopy resources available for developing and implementing department- specific
programs to meet the IPM policy. Comments and suggestions for revisions to the policy
were incorporated in the final policy version being considered by the City Council. Public
Works staff will coordinate the annual compliance reporting required by the RWQCB.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
One-time start -up costs to establish written departmental standard operating procedures
for IPM implementation and to provide initial training in IPM to relevant departmental
personnel is estimated at approximately $10,000 and is included in the Public Works
operating budget. Annual cost increases to perform training, meet reporting requirements,
and modify current pest control practices are estimated at approximately $50,000 and will
be funded by each department as part of the annual operating costs for the affected
programs.
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This policy is consistent with and complements the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC)
Section 30 -00, Bay Friendly Landscaping Requirements for New City Landscaping
Projects, City Renovation Projects, and Public Private Partnership Projects.
Honorable Ma and
Members of the Cit Council
RECOMMENDATION
June 15, 2010
Pa 3 of 3
Adopt a resolution authorizin the Interim Cit Mana to implement a Cit polic on
IPM.
Approved as to funds and account,
W
UAQ-W
Evel Leun
Interim Supervisin Accountant
NEIM
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
AUTHORIZING THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER TO IMPLEMENT CITY
WIDE POLICY ON INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT
WHEREAS, the City of Alameda is a member agency of the Alameda
Countywide Clean Water Program (ACCWP) and fully participates in the
activities, benefits, duties, and responsibilities of the ACCWP as reflected in the
existing agreement to implement the ACCWP as approved in 1991 and
amended in 1990, 2001, and 2004; and
WHEREAS, the City of Alameda is required to operate in conformance
with a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit as
prescribed by the Federal Clean Water Act with respect to discharges of storm
water from its storm water drainage and collection system; and
WHEREAS, the City of Alameda is a permittee under the ACCWP
NPDES Permit from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB), San Francisco Bay Region, reissued as order R2 -2009 -0074
(NPDES Permit No. CAS012008) on October 14, 2009; and
WHEREAS, Provision C.9., of the NPDES Permit Pesticides Toxicity
Control, requires the City to adopt an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Policy
or Ordinance no later than July 1, 2010; and
WHEREAS, Provision C.9., of the NPDES Permit Pesticides Toxicity
Control, further requires the City to establish written standard operating
procedures for the implementation of IPM by municipal employees and
contractors in adherence with this IPM Policy or ordinance; and
WHEREAS, Provision C.9., of the NPDES Permit Pesticides Toxicity
Control, further requires the City to report to the California RVVQCB, San
Francisco Bay Region, on IPM implementation on an annual basis;. and
WHEREAS, Provision C.9., of the NPDES Permit Pesticides Toxicity
Control, of the City's NPDES Permit further requires the City to ensure that all
municipal employees who, within the scope of their duties, apply or use
pesticides that threaten water quality, are trained in IPM practices and the City's
IPM policy; and
WHEREAS, Provision C.9., of the NPDES Permit Pesticides Toxicity
Control, of the City's NPDES Permit further requires the City, no later than July
1, 2010, to hire either IPM certified contractors or include contract specifications
requiring contractors to implement IPM; and
Resolution #4 -J CC
06-15-10
WHEREAS, a City of Alameda IPM Policy has been prepared to provide
City departments that use pesticides with an appropriate framework to prepare
department specific procedures to implement these above stated requirements
of Provision C.9., Pesticides Toxicity control, of the city's NPDES Permit; and
WHEREAS, city departments have reviewed and accepted this city of
Alameda IPM Policy.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council of the city
of Alameda authorizes the Interim City Manager to implement the city of
Alameda IPM Policy.
1, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly
and regularly adopted and passed by the council of the city of Alameda in a
regular meeting assembled on the 1 5 day of June, 2010, by the following vote
to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official
seal of said city this 16 th day of June, 2010.
Lara Weisiger, City clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Ma and
Members of the Cit Council
From: Ann Marie Gallant
Interim Cit Mana
Date: June 15, 2010
Re: Adopt a Resolution Authorizin the Interim Cit Mana to Submit a Grant
Application to Caltrans for the Safe Routes to School Pro for the Fiscal
Year 2010-2011 Grant Fundin C Use $40,860 in Transportation
Development Act, Article 3 Funds for the Local Match, and Execute all
Necessa Documents
On April 7, 2009, the Cit Council approved Resolution No. 14321 authorizin the
submission of a Safe Routes to School (SR2S) g rant for pedestrian and bic
improvements at Franklin Elementar School, Lunn Elementar School, and Wood
Middle School, and the appropriation of $68,000 in Transportation Development Act
J DA Article 3 funds as the local match. The SR2S pro funds education
pro and construction projects to increase the number of students bic and
walkin to school. The Cit was unsuccessful in securin the SR2S g rant durin the
FY09-1 0 g rant c
Currentl Caltrans is solicitin applications for the SR2S g rant pro for the FY1 0-11
g rant c There is $24.25 million available, and a ten percent local match is re
The Cit has received several SR2S g rants, and recentl constructed improvements
alon Fernside Boulevard, near Lincoln Middle School, with these g rant funds.
DISCUSSION
Durin the past few y ears, Public Works staff has worked with the Alameda Unified
School District (AUSD) and the communit to identif projects that would encoura
students to walk or bike to school. As part of this on- pro staff has studied
potential pedestrian and bic improvements for Franklin Elementar School, Lure
Elementar School, and Wood Middle School. Based on the feedback from AUSD staff
and en anal staff proposes to appl for a SR2S g rant to:
1. Construct curb bulb-outs at Grand Street and San Jose Avenue near Franklin
Elementar School.
Cit Council
Report Re:
A Item #4-'1'r'-1
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
June 15, 2010
Page 2 of 2
2. Install in- pavement crosswalk lights at the raid -block crossing on Grand Street to
connect the public walkway with the wood Middle School entrance.
3. Update school area signage for Lum Elementary School and Wood Middle
School.
4. Provide bicycling and walking education program at Franklin Elementary School,
Lurn Elementary School, and Food Middle School.
Caltrans requires that the city council adopt a resolution to allocate funds.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The estimated total cost for the SR2S project is $403,600, and a local match of $40,860
is required. The city can use the TDA funds, previously allocated by Resolution No.
14321, as the required local match. This project will not impact the General Fund.
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This action does not affect the Alameda Municipal code. The proposed project
supports the following General Plan Transportation Element Objectives:
Objective 4.1.1-b Enhance pedestrian safety and mobility, particularly in high
g
pedestrian use areas, applying methods consistent with the hierarchy
classification of street identified in 4.1.1.a.
Objective 4.3.3 Promote and encourage bicycling as a mode of transportation.
Objective 4.4.3 Work with AUSD to include transportation choice awareness in
education in the schools.
RECOMMENDATIO
Adopt a resolution authorizing the Interim city Manager to submit a grant application to
Caltrans for the SR2S program for the FYI 0-11 grant funding cycle, use, $40,860 in
TDA, Article 3 funds for the local match, and execute all necessary documents.
Approved as to funds and account,
Evelyn Leung
Interim Supervising Accountant
SEE=
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
AUTHORIZING THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT A GRANT
APPLICATION TO CALTRANS FOR THE SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL
g
PROGRAM FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2010/2011 GRANT FUNDING CYCLE,
0
TO USE $40,800 IN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT, ARTICLE 3
4
FUNDS FOR THE LOCAL MATCH, AND TO ExCECUTE ALL NECESSARY
T�
DOCUMENTS
WHEREAS the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has
p
f
allocated Safe Routes to School (SR2S) funds for pedestrians and bicyclist
projects for the Fiscal Year 2010 -2011 (FY1 0-11) totaling $24.25 million; and
WHEREAS, the City of Alameda is committed to encouraging students to
bicycle and walk to school, and to provide facilities and programs that will
encourage this behavior; and
WHEREAS, the city of Alameda wishes to apply to Caltrans for
$408,000 for a bulb -out at Grand Street and San Jose Avenue, in- .pavement
crosswalk lights at the raid -block crosswalk on Grand Street in front of Wood
Middle School, an upgrade of the pedestrian crossing and the bicycle facility
signs at Lum Elementary School and Wood Middle School; and educational
outreach; and
WHEREAS, the State SR2S funding guidelines require that local
agencies fund at least ten percent of the total project cost; and
WHEREAS, the city has $40,800 in funds available in Transportation
Development Act, Article 3 Funds appropriated under Resolution No. 14321 in
FY00 -10 to provide the local snatching funds obligation for the projects.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City council of the city
of Alameda authorizes the filing of an application with Caltrans for the SR2S
program FY10 11 for the allocation of State SR2S funds for the projects
described above, and authorizes the Interim city Manager to execute any
necessary documents.
Resolution #4 fit CC
06 -15 -1D
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly
and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a
regular meeting assembled on the 15 day of June, 2010, by the following vote
to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WH EREOF, I have hereunto set nay hand and affixed the
official seal of said City this 10 day of June, 2010.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the city council
From: Ann Marie Gallant
Interim City Manager
Gate: June 15, 2010
Re: Adopt a Resolution to Allow the city of Alameda Fire.Depa.rtment to Access
Federal Level Summary Criminal History for. Emergency Medical
Technicians Certification
BACKGROUND
Assembly Bill 2917, as shown in Exhibit. 1 attached, requires that, starting July 1, 20.14
all Emergency Medical Technicians {EMTs }..have a California Depart ner t of .Justice
(DOJ) and. a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) criminal background .check.
Assembly .Bill 29 also. requires that both local and state Emergency. Medical Services
departments receive subsequent arrest notifications from the DoJ.
DISCUSSION
In order for the Alameda Fire Department to continue certifying EiTs after Julvo'ld,
a city Council resolution needs. to be. submitted to .the DOJ that authorizes the
department to obtain criminal history information and subsequent notifications f f arrests
from the FE3I for EIVIT certification purposes. The Alameda Fire Department currently
obtains criminal history information on all new members of the department, but does not
receive subsequent arrest notifications.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The funds for this project, which are approximately $7,500, are included. in the FY10o 11
proposed budget in the Fire Department account far professional services and
fingerprinting .(3210 -015oa and. 3210 -61 9.90
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This action will not affect the .Mun.icipal Code.
city Council
Report Res
Agenda item #4-L
06 -15 -10
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the city council
RECOMMENDATION
June 15, 2010
gage 2 of .2
Adopt a resolution to allow the city of Alameda Fire Department to access federal level
summary criminal history for Emergency Medical Technicians .certification.
Respectfully submitted,
David .Kapler
Fire chief
Approved as to funds and account,
Evelyn Leung
Interim Supervising Accountant
Exhibit:
1. Assembly Bill 2917 text
Assembly .Bill No. 2917
CHAPTER 274
An act to amend Sections 1797.101, 1797.170 1797.172 1797.216, and
1798.200 of, to add Sections 1797.61, 1797.117 1797. 1797.184
1 797.211., 1797.217, and 1797.219 to, and to repeal and add Section 1797.62
of, the Health and Safety Code, relating to emergency medical services.
[Approved by Governor September 25, 2008.. Filed with
Secretary of State September 25, 2008.1
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 2917, Torrico. Emergency. medical services personnel.
Under existing law, the. Emergency Medical Services System and the
Prehospital Emergency Medica.] dare Personnel Act, the Emergency Medical
Services Authority is responsible for establishing minimum standards and
promulgating regulations for the. training and. scope. ofpractice for emergency
medical technicians- paramedic (EMT P). Violation of the act .is a
misdemeanor. Under existing .law, these standards and regulations would
be applicable to local governments agencies, and other organizations that
provide this training.
The act also provides for the certification of emergency medical
technicians. through the issuance of certificates, including EMT I and EMT-II
certificates, by local entities, known as local EMS agencies, which are
designated by counties. Existing law .also permits public. safety agencies,
for public safety personnel, and the State Board. of Fire Services, for fire
safety personnel, to issue EMT-1 certificates. Existing law provides that the
medical director of a local EMS agency .or the Emergency Medical.. Services
Authority may deny, suspend; .or revoke. Certificates issued udder these
provisions, or may place.. a certifcate holder on probation, upon the
occurrence of any of specified events.
This bill would, among other things, require the authority to establish and
maintain a Centralized system for monitoring and tracing EMT -1 and EMT II
certification status and EMT P. licensure. status to.. be. used by. certifying
entities, as defined, and would require. specified fees to be. collected. and
expended, upon appropriation, for related purposes. The b.1.1 Would require
the authority to adopt regulations regarding the submission of fingerprint
images and related information to the Department of Justice.
This bill would. require the authority to establish EMT I and EMT- II
certification and disciplinary guidelines. This.bil would authorize an EMT:I
or EMTII employer to investigate and discipline .those EMT I and EMT II
employees who commit specified acts. This bill would require the medical
director to investigate and discipline .specified EMT-Is and EMT IIs. By
91
Ch. 274 —2—
imposing new duties upon local officials, this bill would create a
state mandated local program.
By changing the definition of a crime, this bill would impose a
state mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies
and school districts for certain costs mandated by. the state. Statutory
provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that. with. regard to certain mandates no
reimbursement is required by this act for a specified rea.s.
With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the
Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so
mandated by the stale, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant
to the statutory provisions. noted above.
This bill would snake the operation of its provisions contingent upon the
enactment of SB 997 of the 2007 -08 Regular Session.
The people of the State of California do enact as. follows:
SECTION 1. The Legislature .finds and declares all of the following:
(a) The health and safety. of Californians often depends on the timely
response and Competent care of emergency.medlcal service (EMS) personnel.
(b) Whether it is an .automobile. accident, heart attack; near drowning,
unscheduled. childbirth, gunshot. wound, or. other life critical incident,
emergency medical. technicians (EMTs).provide vital, lifesaving, prehospital
attention to the public and assist. in transporting the sick or. injured to an
appropriate medical facility.
(c) Maintaining consistent and accountable supervision of EMT certificate
holders requires that .pertinent information about certification be available
to all EMS providers prior to the .ernployrnent of an EMT:
(d) Ensuring the safety .of the public, as Drell as that of.first responders,
requires that any entity that employs EMTs have access.. to. pertinent
information concerning any applicant's background and criminal history as
a condition of his. or her employment.
(e) Local EMS agencies. havea rote to play in maintaining the consistency
of department policies and in conforming to. the .legal requirements necessary
to provide appropriate medical oversight and protect the public. safety.
SEC: 2. Section. 797.6 1 is .added to. the Health and .Safety. Code; to read:
1797.61. (a) ``Certificate" or ``license" means a specific .documeni issued
to an individual denoting competence in th named area of prehospital
service.
(b) "Certificate status. or "license status'. means the active, expired,
denied, suspended, revoked, or placed on probation designation applied to.
a certificate or license. issued .pursuant to. this division.
SEC. 3. Section 1797.62 of the. Health and Safety Code is repealed.
SEC. 4. Section 1797.62 is added to the Health.and. Safety Code, to read:
9
3— Ch. 274
1797.62. "Certifying entity" means a public safety agency or the office
of the State Fire Marshal if the agency has a training program for EMT-1
personnel that is approved pursuant to the standards developed pursuant to
Section 1797.109, or the medical director of a local EMS agency.
SEC. 5. Section 1797.101 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to
read:
1797.101. The Emergency Medical Services Authority shall beheaded
by the Director of the Emergency Medical Services Authority ho shall be
appointed by the Governor upon nomination by the Secretary of California
Health and Human Services. The director shall be. a physician and surgeon
licensed in California pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 5 (commencing
with Section 2000) of Division 2 of the Business and Professions .C.ode, and
who has substantial. experience in the practice of emergenc medicine.
SEC. 6. Section 1797.117 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to
read:
1797.117. (a) The authority shall establish and maintain a centralized
registry system for the monitoring and tracking of each EMT I a EMT-11
certificate status and each EMT P license status. This. centralized registry
system ..shall be used by the certifying entities as. part of the c ert i fication
process for an EMT I and EMT 1I and by the author as: part of the
licensure process for an EMT: P license. The authority shall, by. regulation,
specify. the .data elements to be. included in the centralized registry. system,
the requirements for certif ing entities to report the data elements for
inclusion in the. re g istry, in r e po rt ing dea dlines, th pe na lt i es for
failure. of a certifying entity to report certification status changes w ithin
these deadlines, and requirements for submission to the D epartme n t of
Justice fingerprint images and related information required by. the
Department of Justice of, except as. otherwise provided. in this division,
EMT-Land EMT-11 certificate candidates or h and EMT P license
candidates or holders for the purposes described in subdivision (c). The data
elements to be included. in the centralized registry system shall include; but
are not limited. to; data elements that are to be tr ade publicly available
pursuant to subdivision (b
(b) The information made available to the public through the centralized
registry system. shall include all of the following.data .elements: the. full
name of every individual .�vho has been issued.: an EMT or EMT-.II
certificate or EMT: P lic ense, the name of the e nt i ty th at issued th certificate
or license, the certificate. o r license n umber, the. date of issuance of the
license or certificate, and the license or. certificate status.
(c) (1) As part of the centralized registry system, the authority. shall
electronically submit to. the Department of Justice fingerprint images and
related information required by the Department of Justice. of all EMT I and
EMT II certificate candidates. or holders, and of all EMT- P license
applicants, for the purposes of obtaining information as to .the existence and
content of a record of state or federal convictions and state or federal arrests
and also information as to the existence and content of a record of state or
91
Ch. 274 —4—
federal arrests for which the Department of Justice establishes that the person
is free on bail or on his or her recognizance pending trial or appeal.
(2) when received, the Department of Justice shall forward to the Federal
Bureau of Investigation requests for federal summary criminal history
information received pursuant to this subdivision. The Department of Justice
shall review the information returned from the Federal Bureau of
Investigation and compile and electronically disseminate a primary response
to the authority and electronically disseminate a dual response to one
government agency certifying entity.
(3) The Department of Justice shall electronically provide the primary
response to the authority and also electronically, the dual response to one
certifying entity that is a government agency, pursuant to paragraph (1) of
subdivision (p) of Section 11105 of the Penal Code.
(d) The authority shall request the Department of Justice to provide
subsequent arrest notification service, as provided pursuant to Section.
11105.2 of the Penal Code, for persons described in subdivision (c). All
subsequent arrest notifications provided to the authority for persons described
in subdivision (c) shall be electronically submitted to one govern ent agency
certifying entity, as a dual response by the Department of Justice.
(e) The Department of Justice shall charge a fee sufficient to cover the
cost of processing the request described in this section.
SEC. 7. Section 1797.118 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to
read:
1797.118. (a) On and after July 1, 2010, and except as provided in
subdivision (b), every EMT I and EMT-11 certificate candidate or holder
shall have their fingerprint images and related information submitted to the
authority for submission to the Department of Justice pursuant to the
regulations adopted pursuant to Section 1797.117 for a state and federal
level criminal offender record information search, including subsequent
arrest information.
(b) If a state level criminal offender record information search, including
subsequent arrest information, has been conducted on a currently certified
EMT I or EMT-11, who. was certified prior to July 1, 2010, for the purposes
of employment or EMT I or EMT-II certification, then the certifying entity
or employer as identified in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section
1798.200 shall verify in writing to the authority pursuant .to regulations
adopted pursuant to Section 1797.117 that a state level criminal offender
record information search, including subsequent arrest information, has
been conducted and that nothing in the criminal offender record information
search precluded the individual from obtaining EMT I or EMT-II
certification.
SEC. 8. Section 1797.170 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to
read:
1797.170. (a) The authority shall develop and, after approval by the
commission pursuant to Section 1799.50, adopt regulations for the training
and scope of practice for EMT-1 certification.
91
5 Ch. 274
(b) Any individual certified as an EMT -1 pursuant to this division shall
be recognized as an EMT I on a statewide basis, and recertification shall
be based on statewide standards. Effective July 1, 1990, any individual
certified as an EMT-1 pursuant to this act shall complete a course of training
on the nature of sudden infant death syndrome which is developed by the
California SIDS program in the State Department of Public Health in
consultation with experts in the field of sudden infant death syndrome.
SEC. 9. Section 1797.172 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to
read:
1797.172. (a) The authority shall develop and, after approval by the
commission pursuant to Section 1799.50, adopt minimum standards for the
training and scope of practice for EMT-P.
(b) The approval of the director, in consultation with a committee of
local EMS medical directors named by the EMS Medical Directors
Association of California, is required prior to implementation of any. addition
to a local optional scope of practice for EMT-Ps proposed by the medical
director of a local EMS agency.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the authority shall be
the agency solely responsible for licensure and licensure renewal of EMT-Ps
who meet the standards and. are not precluded. from licensure because of
any of the reasons listed in subdivision (d) of Section 1798.200. Each
application for licensure or licensure renewal shall require the applicant's
social security number in order to establish the identity of the applicant.
The information obtained as a result of a state. and federal level criminal
offender record information search shall be used in accordance with Section
11105 of the Penal. Code, and to determine whether the applicant. is subject
to denial of licensure or licensure renewal pursuant to this division.
Submission of fingerprint images to the Department of Justice may not be
required for licensure. renewal upon determination by the authority that
fingerprint images have previously been submitted to the Department .of
Justice during initial licensure, or a previous licensure renewal, provided
that the license has not lapsed and the applicant has resided continuously
in the state since the initial licensure.
(d) The authority shall charge .fees. for the licensure and licensure renewal
of EMT-Ps in an amount sufficient to .support the authority's licensure
program at a level that ensures the qualifications of the individuals licensed
to provide quality care. The basic fee for .licensure or licensure renewal of
an EMT -P shall not exceed one hundred twenty -five dollars ($125) until
the adoption of regulations that specify a different amount that. does not
exceed the authority's E T P licensure, license renewal, and enforcement
programs. The authority shall annually evaluate fees to.determine if the fee
is sufficient to fund the actual costs of the authority's licensure, licensure
renewal, and enforcement programs. If the evaluation. shows that the fees
are excessive or are insufficient to fund the actual costs of the authority's
EMT
-P P licensure, licensure renewal, and enforcement programs, then the
fees shall be adjusted accordingly through the rulemaking process described
in the Administrative Procedures Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section
91
Ch. 274 —6—
It 340) of Part I of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code). Separate
additional fees may be charged, at the option of the authority, for services
that are not shared by all applicants for licensure and licensure renewal,
including, but not limited to, any of the following services;
(1) Initial application for licensure as an EMT-P.
(2) Competency testing, the fee for which shall not exceed thirty dollars
($30), except that an additional fee may be charged for the cost of any
services that provide enhanced availability of the exam for the convenience
of the EMT-P, such as on-- demand electronic testing.
(3) Fingerprint and criminal record check. The applicant shall, if
applicable according to subdivision (c), submit fingerprint images and related
information for criminal offender record information searches with the
Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
(4) Out-of-state training equivalency determination.
(5) verification of continuing education for a lapse in licensure.
(6) Replacement of a lost licensure card. The fees charged for individual
services shall be set so that the total. fees charged to EMT-Ps shall not exceed
the authority's actual total cost for the EMT P licensure program.
(e) The authority may provide nonconfidential, nonpersonal information
relating to EMS programs to interested persons upon request, and may
establish and assess fees for the provision of this information. These fees
shall not exceed the costs of providing the information.
(f) At the option of the authority, fees play be collected for the authority
by an entity that contracts with the authority to provide any .of the services
associated with the EMT P program. All fees collected for the. authority in
a calendar month by any entity designated by the authority pursuant to this
section to collect fees for the authority shall be transmitted to the authority
for deposit into the Emergency Medical Services Personnel Fund within 30
calendar days following the last day of the calendar month in which the fees
were received by the designated entity, unless the contract between the
entity and the authority specifies a different timeframe.
SEC. 10. Section 1797.184 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to
read:
1797.184. The authority shall develop and, after approval by the
commission pursuant to Section 1799.54, adopt all.of the following:
(a) Guidelines for disciplinary orders, temporary. suspensions, and
conditions of probation for EMT I and EMT-11 certificate holders that
protects the public health and safety.
(b) Regulations for the issuance of EMT-1 and EMT II certificates by a
certifying entity that protects the public health and safety
(c) Regulations for the recertification of EMT I and EMT-11 certificate
holders that protect the public health and safety.
(d) Regulations for disciplinary processes for EMT I and EMT-II
applicants and certificate holders that protect the public health and safety.
These disciplinary processes shall be in accordance with Chapter 5
(commencing with Section 11500) of Part I of Division 3 of Title 2 of the
Government Code.
9
7— Ch. 274
SEC. 11. Section 1797.211 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to
read:
1797.211. Each local EMS agency shall submit certificate status updates
to the authority within three working days after a final determination is
made regarding a certification disciplinary action taken by the medical
director that results in a change to an EMT-1 or EMT-II certificate status.
SEC. 12. Section 1797.216 of the Health and Safety Code is amended
to read:
1797.216. public safety agencies that are certifying entities may certify
and recertify public safety personnel as EMT-1. The state fire marshal,
subject to policy guidance and advice from the State Board of Fire Services,
may certify and recertify fire safety personnel as EMT 1. All persons certified
shall have completed a program of training approved by the local EMS
agency or the authority and have passed a competency -based examination.
SEC. 13. Section 1797.217 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to
read:
1797.217. (a) Every certifying entity shall submit to the authority
certification data required by Section 1797.117.
(b) The authority shall collect fees from each certifying entity for the
certification and certification renewal of each EMT I and EMT-11. in an
amount sufficient to support the authority's central registry program and
the local EMS agency administrative. law, judge reimbursement .program.
Separate additional fees may be charged, at the option of the authority, for
services that are not shared by all applicants.
(c) The authority's fees shall be established in regulations, and fees
charged for individual services shall beset so that the total fees charged
shall not exceed the authority's actual total cost for the authority's central
registry program, state and federal criminal offender record information
search response program, and the local EMS agency administrative law
judge reimbursement program.
(d) In addition to any fees collected by EMT-1 or EMT-11 certifying
entities to support. their certification, recertification, or enforcement
programs, EMT-1 or EMT II certifying entities shall .collect fees .to support
the authority's central registry program, and the local. EMS agency
administrative law judge. reimbursement program. In lieu of collecting fees
from an individual, pursuant to an employer choice, a collective bargaining
agreement, or other employment contract, the certifying entity, shall provide
the appropriate fees to the authority pursuant to .this subdivision.
(e) All fees collected for or provided to the authority in a calendar month
by an EMT I or EMT I1 certifying entity pursuant .to this section shall be
transmitted to the authority for deposit into the Emergency Medical
Technician Certification Fund within 30 calendar days following the. last
day of the calendar month in which the fees were received by the certifying
entity, unless a contract. between the certifying entity and the authority
specifies a different timeframe.
(f) At the option of the authority, fees may be collected for the authority
by an entity that contracts with the authority to provide any of the services
91
Ch. 274 —8-
associated with the registry program, or the state and federal criminal
offender record information search response program, or the local Ems
agency administrative law judge reimbursement program. All fees collected
for the authority in a calendar month by any entity designated by the
authority pursuant to this. section to collect fees far the authority shall be
transmitted to the authority. for deposit into the. Emergency Medical
Technician Certification Fund within 30 days .following the last
day of the calendar month inrhich the fees were received by the designated
entity, unless the contract between the entity and the authority specifies a
different timefrarne.
(g) The authority shall .annually evaluate fees to determine if the fee. is
sufficient to fimnd the actual costs of the authority's central registry program,
state and federal criminal offender record information. search response
program, and local EMS agency administrative. law judge reimbursement
program. If the evaluation shows that the fees are excessive or are insufficient
to fund the actual costs .of these programs, then the fees will be adjusted
accordingly through the rulemaking process as outlined in the Adrnin. strative
Procedures Act Chapter 3.5. (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1
of Division 3 of Title ..2 of the G ver .ent Code
(h) The Emergency Medical Technician Certification Fund is hereby
created in the State Treasury. All moneys deposited in the fund shall be
made available, upon. appropriation, to the authority for purposes of the
central registry program, state and federal criminal offender record
information search response program, and the local. EMS. agency
administrative law. judge reimbursement program. The. local .EMS agency
administrative law judge reimbursement program is solely for. the purpose
of making reimbursements. to. local emergency medical service agencies for
actual administrative law. judge costs regarding EMT -I. or EMT-1I
disciplinary action appeals. Reimbursement to the local emergency medical
service agencies. shall only be. made if adequate funds. are available from
fees collected for the authority's focal EMS agency administrative law judge
reimbursement program.
(i) The authority may transfer unused portions of the Emergency Medical
Technician Certification Fund to the Surplus Money Investment Fund. Funds
transferred. to the Surplus Money Investment Fund shall be placed in a
separate trust account, and shall be. available for transfer. to the Emergency
Medical Technician Certification Fund, together with interest earned, when
requested by. the authority.
0) The authority, shall maintain a reserve balance in. the Emergency
Medical Technician Certification Fund of 5 percent of annual revenues.
Any increase in the. fees deposited in the Emergency Medical ;Technician
Certification Fund shall be effective upon a determination by. the authority
that additional moneys are required to fund expenditures of this. section.
SEC. 14. Section 1797.219 is. added to the Health and Safety Code, to
read:
1797.219. All investigatory and disciplinary processes for EMT I and
EMT II certificate holders shall be, subject to Chapter 9.6 (commencing
91
9— Ch. 274
with Section 3250) of Division 4 of Title I of the Government Code, with
respect to certificate holders who are firefighters otherwise subject to these
provisions, and Chapter 9.7 (commencing with Section 3300) of Division
4 of Title I of the Government Code, with respect to certificate holders who
are peace officers otherwise subject to these provisions.
SEC. 15. Section 1798.200 of the Health and Safety Code is amended
to read:
1798.200. (a) (1) (A) Except as provided in paragraph (2), an employer
of an EMT-1 or EMT-II may conduct investigations, as necessary, and take
disciplinary action against an EMT-1 or EMT-11 who is employed by that
employer for conduct in violation of subdivision (c). The employer shall
notify the medical director of the local EMS agency that has jurisdiction in
the county in which the alleged violation occurred within three days .when
an allegation has been validated as a potential violation of subdivision (c).
(B) Each employer of an EMT I or EMT II employee shall notify the
medical director of the local EMS agency that has jurisdiction in county
in which a violation related to subdivision (c) occurred within three. days
after the EMT I or EMT II is terminated or suspended for a disciplinary
cause, the EMT-1 or EMT-11 resigns following notification of an impending
investigation based upon evidence that would indicate .the existence of a
disciplinary cause, or the EMT-1 or EMT-11 is removed from EMT. related
duties for a disciplinary cause after the completion of the employer's
investigation.
(C) At the conclusion of an investigation, the employer .of an El' T I or
EMT-II may develop and implement, in accordance with the guidelines for
disciplinary orders, temporary suspensions, and .conditions of probation
adopted pursuant to Section 1797.194, a disciplinary plan for the EMT-1 or
EMT-11. Upon adoption of the disciplinary plan, the employer shall .submit
that plan to the local ENDS agency within three working days. The employer's
disciplinary plan may include a recommendation that. the medical. director
of the local EMS agency consider taping action against the holder's
certificate pursuant. to paragraph (3).
(2) If an EMT-1 or EMT-11 is not employed by. an ambulance service
licensed .by the Department of the California Highway Patrol or a public
safety agency or if that ambulance service or public safety agency chooses
not to conduct an investigation pursuant .to .paragraph 1 for. conduct in
violation of subdivision (c), the medical director of a local EMS agency
shall conduct the investigations, and, upon a determination of disciplinary
cause, take disciplinary action as. necessary against. this .EMT I or EMT 11.
At the conclusion of these investigations, the medical director shall develop
and implement, in accordance with the recommended guidelines for
disciplinary orders, temporary orders, and conditions of probation adopted
pursuant to Section 1797.184, a disciplinary plan for the EMT -I or EMT-11.
The medical director's disciplinary plan may include action against the
holder's certificate pursuant to paragraph (3).
(3) The medical director of the local EMS agency may, upon a
determination of disciplinary cause and in accordance with regulations for
91
Ch. 274 —10
disciplinary processes adopted pursuant to Section 1797.184, deny, suspend,
or revoke any EMT-1 or EMT II certificate issued under this division, or
may place any EMT I or EMT-II certificate holder on probation, upon the
finding by that medical .director of the occurrence of any o f the actions listed
in subdivision (c) and the occurrence of one of the following:
(A) The EMT-1 or EMT-II employer, after conducting an investigation,
failed to impose discipline for.the conduct under investigation, or the medical
d irector makes a determination that the discipline imposed was not. according
to the guidelines for disciplinary orders and .conditions of probation and the
conduct of the El' T I or EMT-11 certificate holder constitutes grounds for
disciplinary action against the certificate.
(B) Either the employer of an EMT-1 or EM'T 11 further determines, after
an investigation conducted under paragraph (1), or the. medical director
determines after an investigation conducted under paragraph (2), that the
conduct requires disciplinary action against the certificate.
(4) The medical director of the local EMS agency, after consultation with
the employer of an EMT 1 or.EMT II, may. temporarily suspend, prio.r.to. a
hearing, any EMT-1 or EMT-II certificate ..or. both EMT-I. and EMT-11
certificates upon a determination that both of the following conditions have
been meet:
(A) The certificate holder has engaged in acts or omissions that constitute
grounds for revocation of the EMT-1 or EMT -II certificate.
(B) Permitting the certif cate.holder to continue to engage in the certified
activity without restriction would pose an imminent threat to the public
health or safety.
(5) If the medical director of the local EMS agency temporarily suspends
a certificate, the local EMS :agency shall notify. the certificate. holder. that
his or her EMT I or EMT 11.certificate is suspended .and shall identify the
reasons therefor.. within three working days of. the initiation of the
suspension by the .local EMS agency, the agency and employer. shall jointly
investigate the allegation is order .for the agency to make. `a etermination.
of the continuation of .the temporary suspension. All investigatory
information not otherwise protected by law held by the agency and employer
shall be shared between the parties via facsimile transmission or overnight
mail relative to the. decision to temporarily suspend. The local EMS agency
shall decide within 15 calendar days, whether to. serve. the. certificate holder
with an accusation pursuant to Ch apter..5 .(commencing with Section 11500)
of Part I of Division 3 of Title 2.0f the Government Code. if the certificate
holder files a notice. of defense, the .hearing shall be held within 30 days of
the local EMS agency's receipt of the. notice o f defense. The temporary
suspension order shall be deemed vacated .if the local EMS agency fails to
make a final determination. on the merits within 15 days. after the
administrative law.. judge .renders the proposed. decision.
(6) The medical director of the local EMS agency. shall. refer, for
investigation and discipline, any complaint received on an EMT-1 or EMT-II
to the relevant employer within three days of receipt. of the complaint,
pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a).
91
--11 Ch. 274
(b) The authority may deny, suspend, or revoke any EMT P license issued
Under this division, or may place any EMT -P license issued under this
division, or may place any EMT P licenseholder on probation upon the
finding by the director of the occurrence of any of the actions listed in
subdivision (c). Proceedings against any EMT P license or licenseholder
shall be held in accordance with Chapter 5 (commencing with Section
11500) of Part 1 of Division 3 .of Title 2 of the Government Code.
(c) Any of the following actions shall be considered evidence of a threat
to the public health and safety and may result in the denial, suspension, or
revocation of a certificate or license issued under this division, or in the
placement on probation of a certificate or licenseholder under this division:
(1) Fraud in the procurement of any certificate or license under this
division.
(2) Gross negligence.
(3) Repeated negligent acts.
(4) Incompetence.
(5) The commission of any fraudulent, dishonest, or corrupt act that is
substantially related to the qualifications, functions, and duties of prehospital
personnel.
(6) Conviction of any crime which is substantially related to the
qualifications, functions, and duties of prehospital personnel. The record of
conviction or a certified copy of the record shall be conclusive evidence of
the conviction.
(7) Violating or attempting to violate directly or indirectly, or assisting
in or abetting the violation of, or conspiring to violate, any.provision of this
division or the regulations adopted by the authority pertaining to prehospital
personnel.
(8) violating or attempting to violate any federal or state statute or
regulation that regulates narcotics, dangerous drugs, or controlled substances.
(9) Addiction to, the e .xcessive use of, or the misuse of, alcoholic
beverages, narcotics, dangerous drugs, or controlled substances.
(10) Functioning outside the supervision .of medical control in the field
care system operating at the local. level, except as authorized by any other
license or certification.
(11 Demonstration of irrational behavior or occurrence of a physical
disability to the extent that a reasonable. and prudent person would have
reasonable cause td believe that the ability to perform the duties normally
expected may be impaired.
(12) Unprofessional eonduct exhibited by any of the following:.
(A) The mistreatment or physical abuse of any patient resulting from
force in excess of what a reasonable and prudent person trained and acting
in a similar capacity while engaged in the performance. of his or her duties
would use if confronted with a similar circumstance. Nothing in this section
shall be deemed to prohibit an EMT I, EMT-11, or EMT P from assisting a
peace officer, or a peace officer who. is acting in the dual capacity of peace
officer and EMT I, EMT II, or EMT-P, from using that force that is
reasonably necessary to effect a lawful arrest or detention.
9
Ch. 274 12
(B) The failure to maintain confidentiality ofpatient medical information,
except as disclosure is otherwise permitted or required by law in Sections
56 to 56.6, inclusive, of the Civil Code.
(C) The commission of any sexually related offense specified under
Section 290 of the Penal Code.
(d) The information shared among EMT-1, EMT II, and EMT P
employers, medical directors of local EMS agencies, the authority, and
EMT I and EMT-11 certifying entities shall be deemed to be an investigative
communication that is exempt from public disclosure as a public record
pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 6254 of the Government Code. A
formal disciplinary action against an EMT-1, EMT-II, or EMT P shall be
considered a public record available to the public, unless otherwise protected
from disclosure pursuant to state or federal law.
(e) For purposes of this section "disciplinary cause" means an act that is
substantially related to the qualifications, functions, and duties of an EMT-1,
EMT-11, or EMT P and is evidence of a threat to the public health and safety
described in subdivision (c).
SEC. 16. This act shall become operative only if Senate Bill 997 of the
2007 -08 Regular Session is enacted and becomes effective on or before
January 1, 2009.
SEC. 17. This act shall not be construed to limit or otherwise impair the
.medical control of the medical director of a local EMS agency granted
pursuant to Section 1798 of the Health and Safety Code.
SEC. 18. The Legislature finds and declares that Section 15 of this act,
which amends Section 1798.200 of the Health and Safety Code, imposes a
limitation on the public's right of access to the meetings of. public bodies
or the writings ofpublic officials and agencies within the meaning of Section
3 of Article I of the California Constitution. Pursuant to that constitutional
provision, the Legislature makes the following findings to demonstrate the
interest protected by this limitation and the need for protecting that interest:
emergency medical technicians serve a critical role in the state's .emergency
response network. The public safety is best protected when appropriate and
consistent disciplinary standards are applied. when accusations have been
made against a certified EMT 1 or EMT-11, the individual must be given
the investigatory and due process protection that is offered to other licensed
and certified professionals such as paramedics, physicians, nurses, and other
health care providers.. The public shall have certification, licensure,
disciplinary and other information readily available with the implementation
of the EMT-1, EMT-11, and EMT -P registry as created by Section 1797.117
of the Health and Safety Code.
SEC. 19. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to. Section
6 of Article XIII B of the. California Constitution for certain costs that may
be incurred by a local agency or school district because, in that regard, this
act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or
changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section
17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within
the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution.
9
13— Ch. 274
However, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act
contains other costs mandated by the state reimbursement to local agencies
and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7
(commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government
Code.
x
91
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF ALAMEDA FIRE DEPARTMENT TO ACCESS
FEDERAL LEVEL SUMMARY CRIMINAL HISTORY FOR EMERGENCY
MEDICAL TECHNICIANS
WHEREAS, Penal code Sections 11105(b)(11) and 13300(b )(11)
authorize cities, counties and districts to access state and local summary
o
criminal history information for employment or certification purposes; and
WHEREAS Penal code Section 1110 b 11 authorizes cities counties
4
and districts to access federal level criminal history information by transmitting
g
0 fingerprint images and related information to the Department of Justice to be
CL transmitted to the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and
WHEREAS, Penal- Code Sections 11105(b )(11) and 13300(b )(11)
require that there be a requirement or exclusion from employment or
certification based on specific criminal conduct on the part of the subject of the
record; and
WHEREAS, Penal Code Sections 11105(b)(11) and 13300(b)(11)
require the city council, board of supervisors, or governing body of a city, county
or district to specifically authorize access to summary criminal history
information for employment or certification purposes.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the city of Alameda is
hereby authorized to access state and federal level summary. criminal history
information for employment (including volunteers and contract employees) or
certification for the city of Alameda purposes and may not disseminate the
information to a private entity; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the city of Alameda shall not
consider a person who has been convicted of a violent or serious felony or
misdemeanor eligible for employment (including volunteers and contract
employees) except that such conviction may be disregarded if it is determined
that mitigating circumstances exist, or that the conviction is not related to the
employment or volunteer in question.
Resolution #4 -L CC
06 -1a -10
1, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly
and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the city of Alameda in
regular meeting assembled on the 15 day of June, 2010 by the following vote
to grit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official
seal of the said City this 16 th day of June, 2010.
Lara Weisiger, city clerk
City of Alameda
IN
k.
Memorandum
To: Honorable Ma and
Members of the Cit Council
From: Ann Marie Gallant
Interim Cit Mana
Date: June 15, 2010
Re: Adopt a Resolution Authorizin Examination of Sales, Use and Transactions
Tax Records
I
On April 22, 2010, the Cit of Alameda si a consultant a with Hinderliter, de
Llamas and Associates (HdL) to provide specialized mana services for sales and
use tax. These services include examinin sales and use tax transactions with the
California State Board of E and performin on allocation audits to identif
and correct distribution errors, which thereb g enerate previousl unrealized sales, use and
transactions tax income for the Cit
DISCUSSION
Section 7056 of the State of California Revenue and Taxation code specificall limits the
disclosure of confidential taxpa information contained in the records of the State Board
of E This section sets forth the conditions under which a Cit ma authorize
persons other than Cit officers and emplo to examine State sales and use tax records
and re a resolution be passed to specif those Cit emplo and an outside
consultants, such as HdL, who are authorized to examine these records.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no impact to the General Fund from the adoption of the resolution.
Adopt a resolution authorizin Examination of Sales, Use and Transactions Tax Records,
Respectfull submitted,
Lisa Goldman
Deput Cit Mana
Cit Council
Report Re:
A Item #4=M
06-1 5=1 0
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
AUTHORIZING EXAMINATION OF SALES, USE
AND TRANSACTIONS TAX RECORDS
PW
WHEREAS, pursuant to ordinance 1183 the City of Alameda entered
into a contract with the state Board of Equalization to perform all functions
incident to the administration and collection of local sales, use and transactions
4° taxes; and
4
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Alameda deems it desirable
and necessary for authorized representatives of the City to ex
F ry p y amine confidential
sales, use and transactions tax records of the state Board of Equalization
pertaining to sales, use and transactions taxes collected by the Board for the
City pursuant to that contract; and
r
WHEREAS, Section 7056 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code
sets forth certain requirements and conditions for the disclosure of Board of
Equalization records, and establishes criminal penalties for the unlawful
disclosure of information contained in, or derived from, the sales, use and
transactions tax records of the Board.
NOVA, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City
of Alameda resolves as follows:
Section 1. That the City Manager, or other officer or employee of the City
designated in writing by the City Manager to the State Board .of..Equali ation
(hereafter referred to as Board), is hereby appointed to represent the City of
Alameda with authority to examine sales, use and transactions. tax records of
the Board pertaining to sales, use and transactions taxes collected for the City
by the Board pursuant to the contract between the City and the Board. The
information obtained by examination of Board records shall be used only for
purposes related to the collection of City sales, use and transactions taxes by
the Board pursuant to that contract.
Section 2. That the City Manager, or other officer or employee of the City
designated in writing by the City Manager to the Board, is hereby appointed to
represent the City with authority to examine those sales, use and transactions
tax records of the Board, for purposes related to the following governmental
functions of the City: City administration, revenue management and budgeting,
community and economic development, and business license tax
administration. The information obtained by examination of Board records shall
be used only for those governmental functions of the City listed above.
Section 3. That Hinderliter, de Llamas Associates is hereby designated
to examine the sales, use and transactions tax records of the Board pertaining
Resolution #4 -M CC
06 -5 -o
to sales, use and transactions taxes collected for the city by the Board. The
person or entity designated by this section meets all of the following conditions:
(a) has an existing contract with the city to examine those sales, use and
transactions tax records;
(b) is required by that contract to disclose information contained in, or
derived from, those sales, use and transactions tax records only to an officer or
employee authorized under Section 1 or 2 of this resolution to examine the
information;
(c) is prohibited by that contract from performing consulting services for a
retailer during the terra of that contract; and
(d) is prohibited by that contract from retaining the information contained
in, or derived from those sales, use and transactions tax records, after that
contract has expired.
The information obtained by examination of Board records shall be used
only for purposes related to the collection of city sales, use and transactions
taxes by the Board pursuant to the contract between the city and .the Board and
for purposes relating to the governmental functions of the city listed in section 2
of this resolution.
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly
and regularly adopted and passed by the council of the city of Alameda in a
regular meeting assembled on the 15th day of June, 2010 by the following vote
to wit:
AYES
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the
seal of said city this 10th day of June, 2010.
Lara Weisiger, city clerk
City of Alameda
CITY oP ALA EDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Ann Marie Gallant
Interim City Manager
Date: June 15, 2010
Re: Introduce an ordinance to Amend the Grand Marina Faster Plan to
Reduce the Inclusionary Housing Requirement from 25 Percent to 15
Percent
JOIN
On January 17, 2007, the City Council approved the Grand Farina Village Master Plan
(Master Plan) and associated entitlements for the development of 40 single-family
9 y
homes at the foot of Grand Street by Warrnington Homes (Project). The. Master Plan
and associated entitlements obligated the Project to provide ten affordable units,
including two units affordable to very low- income households, three units affordable to
low- income households, and five units affordable to moderate income households
consistent with the Community Improvement Commission's (CIC) 2004 Inclusionar
Housing Resolution (2004 CIC Resolution). The 2004 CIC Resolution required .25% of
all units in residential projects within the Business and Waterfront Improvement (BWIP
Area be made available to very low, low, and moderate income households.
Due to changing economic and market conditions after Project approval, Warming ton
Homes placed the Project on hold for a period of time. However, .on October 30, 2008,
the CIC and the City entered into an Affordable Housing Agreement (AHA) with
Warmington Homes for construction of the required inclusionary units. The AHA fulfilled
a condition of approval imposed on the master Plan to build and maintain the ten
affordable housing units.
On November 17, 2009, the CIC reduced the inclusionary housing requirement in the
redevelopment areas from 25% to 15% to correspond with the citywide 15%
inclusionary requirement as part of the process for adopting the Density Bonus
Ordinance (2009 CIC Resolution). This change was made so that future p ro`ects in
redevelopment areas would not automatically qualify for incentives, concessions or
waivers pursuant to the State of California's Density Bonus regulations.
On April 9, 2010, Warmington Homes submitted the attached letter requesting that the
City and CIC reduce the inclusionary housing requirement for the Project from 25% to
15
City Council
Report
Agenda
a.
Honorable Mayor and June 15, 2010
Members of the City Council Page 2 of 4
On April 20, 2010, the City Council and the CIC approved Warmington's request to
amend the AHA to reduce the number of affordable units from 25% to 15 pending
approval by the City Council of the necessary amendments to the Master Plan. (The
Master Plan for the project requires that 25% of the units be affordable.)
On May 24, 2010, the Planning Board passed a resolution recommending that the City
Council approve the necessary luster Plan amendments.
DISCUSSION
Affordable Housing Requirements and Agreements: During the five years (2004 through
O
2009) that the CIC s 25% inclusionary onary requirement was n effect, two projects were
obligated to meet the 25% requirement: the Grand Marina Project, and the approved,
but not yet built, Alameda Landing project. The Grand Marina Project is the and
approved residential project that was required to provide 25% affordable housing
without any financial support or other City assistance during he five-year period.
g y p
Since adopting the 25% inclusionary requirement in 2004, the viability of a 25%
inclusionary requirement on single family home development has diminished as
economic conditions in the Bay Area have changed dramatically. Since 2007, private
housing development in the Bay Area, and in Alameda, has come to a virtual halt. Even
in communities without any inclusionary housing requirements, private housing
construction has slowed significantly.
The fact that warmington is proceeding with the Project represents a vote of confidence
that the economic conditions in Alameda can support new home. sales. The success. of
the Project will strengthen the local economy by jobs generating construction and
increasing property values, and is likely to have a positive effect on the viability and
timing of redevelopment of the adjacent Shell /Pennzoil property and Chipman
Warehouse site, as well as other properties, such as the Del Monte building and Encinal
Terminals site.
Given that the Master Plan's original 25% requirement was based on the 2004 CIC
Resolution, staff requested that the CIC be the first Agency to consider the request to
reduce the affordable housing obligation on the Project. on April 20 the CIC
approved the requested modification to the affordable housing agreement, consistent
with the following terms:
1. The total number of affordable housing units will decrease from ten to six to be
consistent with the 2009 CIC Resolution for housing projects in the BWIP area.
The project would provide three units affordable to moderate- income households,
two units affordable to low income households and one unit affordable to a very
low income household also consistent with the 2000 CIC Resolution.
2. Warrnington agrees to complete each of the four phases of the project pursuant
to a phasing plan described in the second Amendment to the AHA. For every
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
June 15, 2010
Page 3of4
phase not completed on time, Warmington will be required to pay an affordable
housing in -lieu fee of $31,000. The purpose of this provision is to compel
Warmington to complete the Project expeditiously. If Warmington maintains the
Project construction schedule, they will not pay the in -lieu fee.
Since the request requires amendments to both the AHA and the Master Plan, the City
Council's April 20, 2010 approval of the amendment to the AMA does not become
effective until and unless the City Council, after holding a public hearing, and after
considering the recommendation of the Planning Board, approves the necessary
amendments to the Master Plan to reduce the number of affordable units from ten to
six. If for any reason, the City Council does not approve the necessary amendments to
the Master Plan, the April 20, 2010 decision does not take effect.
Master Plan Amendment Can May 24, 2010, the Planning Board recommended that the
Master Plan be amended to reduce the inclusionary requirement for the Project as
follows:
"Affordable dousing The project provides 49 six €Q units of below market rate
housing, which are dispersed throughout the residential development [see
Landscape Plan], of a quality and style consistent with the market rate units, and
will be available to households with very low, low, and moderate incomes per
City and County standards. By providing 15% of the units as affordable
below market rate units, the project is �Q fst t- a --meef consistent with the
amended requirements for construction of residential units within the Business
and waterfront Improvement Plan (BWIP) area."
The Planning Board and staff are recommending the above amendment with the
following conditions, which are designed to improve the overall appearance of the
Grand Street terminus adjacent to the project site:
1. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for Phase 1, Warmington shall submit
a landscaping plan for the street median on Grand Street for Public Works
Department approval. The median must be landscaped and inspected b the
y
Public Works Department prior to issuance of the first building permit for Phase
Ill. Landscaping in the street median will be irrigated with existi City facilities in
median and adjacent control features, but maintenance costs for street median
will be the responsibility of the developer and will be incorporated in a
maintenance agreement with the City.
2. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for Phase Ill, Warmington shall
complete the grinding and overlaying of both sides of Grand Street, from the
centerline of Fortmann Way to the special concrete paving at the end of Grand
Street from curb to curb, in accordance with City standards and the already
approved Conditions of Approval for the repaving of the western side of the
Grand Street. Final work must be approved by the Public works Department.
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
June 15, 2010
Page 4of4
3. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for Phase 111, Warmington shall
extend the Project's landscaping concept into the City's adjacent existing
landscaped areas at the end of Grand Street (Grand Street Boat Ramp Park),
repair and replace the irrigation system, as needed, and provide for soil
amendments. Developer shall seek Recreation and Parks Director field approval
of the proposed planting and final inspection of work. The City will continue to
maintain the landscaped areas. This excludes the street median referenced in
paragraph 1 above.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no financial impact from the proposed Farina village Master Plan Amendment.
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
The proposed amendment is consistent with the City of Alameda's Inclusionary Housing
Requirements (AMC Section 30 -15) and the Community Improvement Commission's
2009 Resolution regarding inclusionary housing requirements for projects within the
Business and Waterfront Improvement District (BWIP).
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is Categorically Exempt from additional environmental review pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15305, Minor Alterations to Land Use Limitations. The
proposed amendments will not result in a significant environmental impact because the
changes do not change the physical environment or the number of units constructed on
the site.
RECOMMENDATION
Introduce an ordinance to amend the Grand Marina Master Plan to reduce the
inclusionary housing requirement from 25 percent to 15 percent.
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew Thomas
Planning Services Manager
cc: Michael W. McClellan, Warmington Residential
CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO.
E
0 New Series
APPROVING AMENDMENT TO MASTER PLAN MP05-01 FOR A
GRAND MARINA VILLAGE TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF
REQUIRED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS
BE IT ORDAINED b the Cit Council of the Cit of Alameda
CL
that:
Section 1. In accordance with Subsection 30-4.20 of the Alameda Municipal
Code, Master Plan MP05-01 and Master Plan Conditions of Approval, as approved on
Januar 16, 2007 is hereb amended as shown in Exhibit "A".
Section 2. The above Master Plan MP-05-01 shall be known as and
referenced to as Grand Marina Pro Master Plan dated Jul 17, 2006, as amended.
Section 3. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after
the expiration of thirt (30) da from the date of its final passa
Presidin Officer of the Council
Attest:
Lara Weisi Cit Clerk
Introduction of Ordinance #4-N CC
06-15-10
Exhibit A:
Section III: Architectural Design Concepts subsection entitled "Affordable Plousina" shall be
amended as follows:
"Affordable Housing": The project provides 4-0 six (�Q units of below market rate
housing, which are dispersed throughout the residential development (see Landscape
Plan), of a quality and style consistent with. the market rate units, and will be available to
households with very low, low, and moderate incomes, per City and County standards.
By providing 15% of the units as affordable below market rate units, the project is
firs consistent with the amended re quirem ents for construction of residential
units within the Business and waterfront Improvement Plan (BWIP) area."
The Master Plan Conditions of Approval approved by the City Council on January 2007 shall be
amended to include the following three conditions:
1. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for Phase I, warmington shall submit a
landscaping plan for the street median on Grand Street for Public Works Department
approval. Median must be landscaped and inspected by the Public Works Department
prior to issuance of the first building permit for Phase III. Landscaping in the street
median will be irrigated with existing City facilities in median and adjacent control
features, but maintenance costs for street median will be the responsibility of the
developer and will be incorporated in a maintenance agreement with the City,
Z. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for Phase III, warmington shall complete the
grinding and overlaving of both sides of grand Street, from the centerline of Fortmann
Way to the special concrete paving at the end of Grand Street from. curb to curb, in
accordance with City standards and the already approved Conditions of Approval for the
repaving of the western side of the Grand Street. Final work roust be approved by the
Public works Department.
3. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for Phase III, warrnington shall extend the
Project's landscaping concept into the City's adjacent existing landscaped areas at the end
of Grand Street (Grand Street Boat Ramp Park), repair and replace the irrigation system,
as needed, and provide for soil amendments. Developer shall seek Recreation and Parks
Director field approval of the proposed planting and final inspection of work. The City
will continue to maintain the landscaped areas. This excludes the street median
referenced in paragraph l above.
1, the undersigned, hereby certify that the
regularly adopted and passed by council of the
assembled on the day of
AYES:
DOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
foregoing Ordinance was duly and
City of Alameda in regular meeting
2010 by the following vote to grit:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal
of said city this day of 2010.
Lara Weisiger, city clerk
City of Alameda
CITY of ALA ED
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Ann Marie Gallant
Interim City Manager
Date: June 15, 2010
Re: Hold a Public Hearing to Adopt a Resolution Authorizing Collection of
Delinquent Integrated Waste Management Accounts by Means of the
Property Tax Bills
BACKGROUND
The State Public Resources Code and the Health and Safety Code require proper
disposal of all refuse and discarded materials. To ensure these required public health
standards are met, the City requires all residential and commercial properties to receive
and pay for Integrated Waste Management (IWM) services, as provided by the City's
franchise hauler, Alameda County Industries (ACI). Collection services may be aid b
y p y
the property owner or a tenant; however, since 1990, the City has held property owners
responsible for delinquent accounts that are unpaid by their tenants.
ll I aL;GOr dal 1L:e Viiitl i C hapter i, Solid VVaste and mecycling, of the Alameda Municipal
Code (AMC) and the Franchise Agreement (FA) between the City and ACI, ACI may
assign delinquent IWM accounts to the City for collection through the property tax.. Prior
to assigning their rights to the City, ACI is obligated to make at least four attempts to
collect the delinquent accounts. The City Council is required to hold a public hearing
prior to collecting through the property tax bills. Can May 18, 2010, the City Council set
June 151 2010, as the date for this public hearing.
DISCUSSION
On April 2, 2010, ACI assigned a list of 52 delinquent lWM accounts, with an unpaid
balance of $26,147.90, excluding penalties, Interest, and City fees, to the City for
collection. In accordance with the AMC, the City sent letters to the property owners that
had delinquent accounts, requesting immediate payment by 2:00 p.m. on June 15,
2010. Although not required, the City sent property owners an additional reminder letter
prior to the hearing date. The letters stated that if payment were not promptly rece.iv.ed,
the City would consider collecting the delinquent accounts by means of the ro ert tax
p p y
bills. A corner sheet stating, "Please Contact the Public Works Department at 749 -5840
for Information," translated into the six most commonly spoken languages within the
City, was included with each letter.
Since ACI's assignment of delinquent accounts to the City, three delinquent accounts
have been resolved, by payment in full. Currently, 49 accounts remain delinquent.
City Council
Public Hearing
Agenda
Honorable Mayor and June 15, 2010
Members of the city council Page 2 of 2
Pursuant to the AMC and the FA, the City is obligated to pay ACI for all delinquent
accounts. Accounts that remain delinquent and are not approved for collection through
the property tax bills are considered "bad debt," and could result in an increase to the
rates in order to recover the "bad debt."
The total sure of $27,599.80 in unpaid delinquent charges consists of the unpaid
balance due to ACI ($23,845) and City fees and interest ($3,755 City fees include
interest, administration costs, and the consultant fee for filing with the county Auditor.
The list of unpaid delinquent charges will be forwarded to the county and placed on the
property tax bills. As the deadline for resolving delinquencies is 2:90 p.m. on the day of
the public hearing, an updated list of lien properties will be provided at the city council
meeting. The list of properties is included as Exhibit 1.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The total amount due for this group of non -paid accounts, not including City fees, is
$23,844.88. The city receives a ten percent franchise fee from ACI, which is revenue
for the General Fund. The loss in General Fund revenue for the unpaid Iv1 M fees, as
listed, is $2,384,49. Staff estimates the cost to administer this program is approximately
$5,090 per year, and the lien program is structured to provide full cost recovery for the
past due accounts. Adoption of the resolution to collect delinquent charges on the
property tax bill will result in a small increase in revenue to the General Fund.
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
The city's Ivl M Program is consistent with the General Plan Health Safety Element
Guiding Policy 8.4.k and is consistent with the Waste and Recycling Initiative of the
Local Action Plan for climate Protection.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution authorizing collection of delinquent IWM accounts by means of the
property tax bills.
RespectF ly, bmitted,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
Approved as to funds and account
to C O V
Evelyn Leung
Interim Supervising Accountant
MM:lllFD:gc
Exhibit 1 Lien list of properties
cc: Louie Pellegrini, ACI
Exhibit I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
343.11
074-- 1336 -155
108 PARFAIT LN
397.80
072 0344 -014
1415 BENTON ST
235.04
074 1038-006
205 BAYWOOD RD
241.24
074 -0442 -025
1438 5TH ST
498.81
073 0392 -003
1417 SAINT CHARLES ST #B
301.95
073 0392 -003
1417 SAINT CHARLES ST #A
419.10
071 0252 005
2021 PACIFIC AVE
300.69
074 -1265 -183
308 SUNSET RD
477.51
073 -0414 -022
742 PACIFIC AVE #RR
713.55
074 -1355 -044
2128 CORAL SEA ST
411.33
074 1039 -162
218 LAGUNAR]A LN
537.69
073 0403 -011
1351 BURBANK ST
820.93
070 0185 -017
2415 MART] RAE CT
571.08
071- 0279 -001
1 538 UNION 5T
1,130.13
073 0388 -018
1045 SANTA CLARA AVE
552.93
074 1255 -104
1810 CLINTON AVE
606.18
074 -1080 -034
849 CEDAR ST
520.65
072 0313 -008
1625 SAN JOSE AVE
364.59
072 0315 --003
1215 GRAND ST
325.52
071-0214-040
2250 SAN ANTONIO AVE
325.52
071 -0214 -041
2254 SAN ANTONIO AVE
440.40
069 0136 -012
1004 VERSAILLES AVE
891.59
071 0214 -012
2245 SAN JOSE AVE
397.80
072 -0321 -011
1702 PARU ST #B
586.66
074 -1316 -055
1302 CROWN DR
705.56
074 -1 033 -005
1136 HOLLY ST
397.80
074 -1320 -009
29 CAPTAINS DR
499.65
074- 0471 -007
1621 3RD 5T
479.25
069 0133 -043
1236 COLLEGE AVE
584.88
073 0383 -017
1 808 CHAPIN ST
219.69
074 -1035 -029 -13
812 ISLAND DR #A
584.88
074 -1033 -049
3422 SOLOMON LN
516.91
074 -0441 -010
1505 6TH ST
438.72
074 -1275 -044
1101 SHERMAN ST
605.18
074 1326 -112
6 SHANNON CIR
442.07
071 -0282 -008
1715 SCHILLER ST
347.02
072 -0313 -008
1625 SAN JOSE AVE 12
692.25
069 0060 -010
1214 PEACH ST
324.40
074- -1036 --005
114 MA]TLAND DR
1,627.10
071 -0254 -004
2052 EAGLE AVE
476.91
073 0426 -021
759 EAGLE AVE
584.88
069 0095-045
3261 CENTRAL AVE
1,660.23
072 -0316- 003 -01
1610 CENTRAL AVE #A
410.81
071 0251 -020
2058 BUENA VISTA AVE #BACK
584.88
072 0297-003
1730 BUENA VISTA AVE
461.90
072 0378 -011
1105 BUENA VISTA AVE
801.74
070 0169 -018
1521 BROADWAY
1,155.39
072 -0369 -024
1406 BAY ST
584.58
071- 0248 -015
2029 CENTRAL AVE
14
15
16
17
18
19
24
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
27, 59 9.8 1 Total Due
WILLIAMS DONNALUC]
875 A ISLAN DR #3 78
ALAMEDA
RIVERA PIEDAD C
1 101 SH ERMAN ST
ALAMEDA
CHUNG SHINAE
205 BAYWOOD RD
ALAMEDA
HAUS NICHOLAS R
1438 5TH ST,
ALAMEDA
AUGUSTINE CONNIE
1417 SAINT CHARLES ST
ALAMEDA
AUGUSTINE CONNIE
1417 SAINT CHARLES ST
ALAMEDA
NAJDEK SAMUEL
2023 PACIFIC AVE
ALAMEDA
TRAN RICHARD
308 SUNSET RD
ALAMEDA
CANTRELL ROBE A
TORMA VAN A
742 112 PACIFIC AVE,
ALAMEDA
2128 CORAL SEA ST
ALAMEDA
DEVRIES MARILYN S
875A ISLAND DR #440
ALAMEDA
BATTAGLIA SUSAN
1351 BURBANK ST
ALAMEDA
CHAN KAMAN
3363 F ERNSIDE BLVD
ALAMEDA
3WICK NORMA M HEIRS OF EST/C/O
DEBORAH L SWICK
1538 UNION ST
ALAMEDA
HENRY GEORGE A FARRELL ANNE
M
1045 SANTA CLARA AVE
ALAMEDA
CAVANAUGH JEFFREY D CARA R
1810 CLINTON AVE,
ALAMEDA
CABRERA, PETRA JAIME
1816 ELM ST
ALAMEDA
GALL] WILLIAM D
1625 SAN JOSE AVE
ALAMEDA
GALLI WILLIAM D
1625 S AN JOSE AV
ALAMEDA
GALLI WILLIAM D
162 SAN JOSE AVE
ALAMEDA
GALLI WILLIAM D
1625 SAN JOSE AVE
ALAMEDA
3WA]N MICHAEL W JR RAINBOW A
1004 VERSAILLES AVE
AL AMEDA
JOHNSON KEVIN M
2245 SAN JOSE AVE
ALAMEDA
KOKA MOTI
858 ACALA RD
LAFAYETTE
COPPOCK PAUL
130 CROWN DR
ALAMEDA
SONG POM I JEOM S
1 1 36 HOLLY ST
ALAMEDA
KADEVARI RAVINDER R
29 CAPTAINS DR
ALAMEDA
MANERS DAVID E
1621 3RD ST
ALAMEDA
NEWELL DANIEL BRIDGETTE
1236 COLLEGE AVE
ALAMEDA
KASO JOHN
1808 CHAPIN ST
ALAMED
FALCHE ROBERT A
812 ISLAND DR
ALAMEDA
HINES, ROBERT
3422 SOLOMON LN,
ALA MEDA
RODRIGUEZ ERIC J DANA R
1505 6TH S
ALA MEDA
RIVERA PIEDAD C
1101 SHERMAN ST,
ALAMEDA
SARASPI LISA D MARCIANO
6 SHANNON CIR
ALA MEDA
GREER ANN M
1715 SCH ILLER ST
ALAMEDA
GALLI WILLIAM D
1625 SAN JOSE AVE
ALAMEDA
ROURICK DONALD RIAN J
12 14 PEACH ST
ALAMEDA
KHALAJI H
114 MAITLAND DR
ALAMEDA
RAFF, ERIC M
2052 EAGLE AVE
ALAMEDA
TRAM THOMAS O
759 EAGLE AVE
ALAMEDA
LEVERTON PATRICIA J
301 LAGUNARIA LN
ALAMEDA
WINSLOW HUGH S/WINSLOW
SHIRELL T
1610 CENT AVE #A
ALAMEDA
ORTIZ GILBERTO
1719 LA FAYETTE ST
ALAMEDA
JONES PAMELA
1730 BUENA VISTA AVE
ALAMEDA
MOORE C W JESSIE P
1105 BUENA VISTA AVE
ALAMEDA
WENCESLAO ELEANOR E
1521 BROADWAY
ALAMEDA
-AGAR JILL
1406 BAY ST
ALAMEDA
010 ILL full HAEL �ALIE A
8 CHERRY HILLS CT
LAFAYETTE
BREAKDOWN OF FEES DUE
27,600 Total Due
23,845 Payment due ACI
3,755 City Fees Interest
City Council
Exhibit to
Public Hearing
Agenda Item ##6 -A
06 -15 -10
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION PLO.
AUTHORIZING COLLECTION OF DELINQUENT INTEGRATED WASTE
MANAOEMENT ACCOUNTS BY MEANS OF THE PROPERTY TAX BILLS
i
WHEREAS, pursuant to Alameda Municipal Code AMC Section 21 -20.8
delinquent integrated waste collection accounts, which include the charges,
g
penalties, and interest thereon if not i
p paid when due, may become a lien against
Z the property; and
4 j
C
WHEREAS, the Public works Director files with the City Manager y a ager a written
notice of those properties on which the Cit y will file liens; and
WHEREAS, upon receipt of such notice, the City Manager may present
same to the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Alameda and pursuant to AMC Subsection 21- 20.6b:
1. The City's Franchise Hauler, Alameda County Industries (ACI), has
submitted a list of delinquent accounts and corresponding pro erties. ACI
p
has established that each delinquent account is at least 00 days late in
payment.
2. ACI has established that it sought collection for one year from the invoice
date and has made at least four efforts to collect on the delinquent
account.
1 On April 2, 2010 ACI assigned its right to the unpaid accounts to the City
in writing.
4. City staff provided the City Council with a report and filed said report with
the City Clerk listing each property and the amount due in unpaid charges,
plus any penalties, interest, and other collection fees.
5. On May 18, 2010, the City Council set a public hearing for delinquent
integrated waste management charges for June 15, 2010.
0. On May 10, 2010, and June 2, 2010, the City Clerk mailed a first and
second letter to each property owner requesting payment .and stating that
if payment were not received by 2:00 p.m. on June 15, .2010, the City will
hold a public hearing at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers to
consider placing a lien on the property in order to collect the delinquent
amount through the property tax bill.
7. On May 21, 2010, and June 4, 2010, the City Clerk published a legal
notice of the filing of the report as well as the time, date, and place for the
public hearing to be held on June 15, 2010.
8. On June 15, 2010, the City Council held a public hearing and confirmed
the staff report and directed City staff to forward to the County Auditor the
Resolution #6 -A
00 -15 -10
total sum of unpaid delinquent charges including any penalties, interest,
and other collection fees.
1, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly
and regularly adopted and passed by the council of the city of Alameda in a
regular meeting assembled on the 15 day of June, 2010, by the followin g vote
to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSENTIONS:
IN VVITN ESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official
seal of said city this 15 day of June, 2010.
Lara Weisiger, city clerk
City of Alameda
CITE' OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the city council
From: Ann Marie Gallant
Interim city Manager
Date: June 15, 2010
Re: Hold a Public Hearing to Adopt a Resolution Approving the Engineer`s
Report, confirming Diagram and Assessment, and. Ordering Levy of
Assessments Island Citv Landscaping and Liqhting District 84 -2 All Zones
BACKGROUND
On February 3, 2010, in accordance with the Landscape and Lighting Act of .1972, the. City
Council appointed an engineer and an attorney for the Landscaping and Lighting
g g
Assessment District (LLAD) 84 -2 and authorized the preparation of.the Engineer's Report.
On April 20, 2010, the city Council preliminarily approved the En g ineer's .Re p ort, declared
an intention to order levy and collection of assessment, and set a hearing for June 15,
2010.
DISCUSSION
The Engineer's Report was prepared in accordance with section 22505. et g
se of the
California Streets and Highways code. The report provides an annual budget to .provide
enhanced maintenance of the improvements within zones one through seven of LLAD84 -2
not typically performed by the city. The Engineer's Report provides an. estirnate.of.cost by
each of the seven zones to be addressed for FY10 -11. daps of the seven zones are
attached. The zones and enhanced maintenance work are:
Zone 1 Lincoln Avenue between Sherman street and St. Charles Street: This zone. is
responsible for the maintenance of the landscaped medians in the 110.0 and 1200 blocks
of Lincoln Avenue, including the utilities for operating the irrigation. The revenue received
through the assessments for this zone is sufficient to fund 100% of the maintenance
budget. For FY10 -11, the property assessments will remain unchanged from the p revious
year's assessment.
Zones 2 and 3 Webster Street from central Avenue to Lincoln Avenue and Webster
Street from Lincoln Avenue to Atlantic Avenue: These two zones work together and fund
landscape maintenance and seasonal banners. In addition, the west Alarneda Business
Association (WABA) oversees a $55,000 annual contract, partially fumed b y the LLAD, for
sic days a week litter and graffiti removal, weekly mechanical sweeping of the sidewalk and
City Council
Public Hearing
Agenda Item 6-
Honorable [Mayor and June 15, 2010
Members of the city Council Page 2 of 4
general public areas, and associated maintenance supplies. Assessments have remained
unchanged since the early 1990s.
Currently, the revenues received through these zones fund only 81 of the total
maintenance budget for Zone 2 and 86% for Zone 3. In 2007, a ballot to increase
assessments failed, and the WABA Board is not supportive of another ballot measure to
increase assessments due to the current economic condition. The proposed budget for
FY 0 -11 continues to allocate a portion of the reserve fund balance. and .maintains last
year's $5,200 decrease in maintenance expenses. Last y ear, WABA was able to use
alternate funding sources to replace the maintenance funding cuts by the district, resulting
in no reduction in services. For FY10 -11 WABA is not able to locate alternate funding
sources. City staff is working on an alternative that would pool. resources in order. to
maintain current service levels. Together, these Zones are drawing on reserves at the rate
of $x',100 per year, after the decrease in expenses. If assessments are not increased by
FY14 -15, additional budget reductions will be required.
Zone 4 Park Street from the Park Street Bridge to San Jose Avenue includinq areas of
Webb Street Santa Clara Avenue. Lincoln Avenue and central Avenue. This zone funds
landscape maintenance, semi- annual sidewalk steam cleaning, supplies, and seasonal
banners /decorations. Assessments have remained unchanged since .t.he early 1.990s.
Currently, the revenues received through the assessments from this Zone are sufficient to
fund 100% of the total maintenance budget due to recommended budget redactions.
Previously, the Park Street Business Association (PSBA) anticipated that an assessment
increase would be proposed for FY09 -10; howeWer, due to the. economic. condition, this
increase did not move forward. Since the economy has not improved, the PSBA Board is
not recommending an increase in assessments for FY10 -11. Based on discussions with
and concurrence by PSBA, the maintenance budget has been adjusted to be within the
projected revenues. This will reduce the maintenance budget by an additional $1,000 from
the previous fiscal year's reduction of $4,600. PSBA proposes. to supplement this
reduction with other PSBA funds and does not anticipate reducing the maintenance level
from last year. Additionally, city staff is working on an alternative to maintain current
Service levels and reduce the financial impact to PSBA.
Zone 5 Harbor Bay Business Park: This Zone funds irrigation and landscape
maintenance costs within the Harbor Bay Business Park(HBBP), includingtreetrirnming,
sidewalk and pathway repairs, energy cost, and streetlight maintenance costs. The budget
for this Zone is developed in conjunction with the HBBP Association. Based on previous
approval by the property owners, an automatic Consumer Price Index (CPI) increase can
be applied to the assessment.
Honorable Mayor and June 15, 2010
Members of the City Council Page 3 of 4
The revenues received through the assessments from this zone are sufficient to fund 40%
of the proposed FYI 0-11 maintenance budget. Last year's maintenance budget included
an allocation of $350,000 from reserve funds to re- landscape the street medians and
reduce the amount of sod, resulting in an overall reduction in maintenance and .u.tility costs.
The property owners requested that the project be deferred until FYI 0-11. Staff.supports
this request. For FY10--11, the proposed property assessment includes an annual CPI
increase of 1.79 which increases revenues by $13,237. The remaining unallocated
reserve will be $1 50,000.
Zone 6 Alameda Marina Villa e Commercial Areas: This zone funds irrigation and
landscape maintenance costs within the commercial areas of Marina Village, including tree
trimming, the linear shoreline park, sidewalk and pathway repairs, street lighting
maintenance, and energy costs. The revenue received through the assessments from this
zone is sufficient to fund 100% of the proposed maintenance budget. The budget for this
zone is developed in conjunction with the Marina Village Management group. Based on
previous approval by the property owners, an automatic CPI increase is. applied. to the
assessment. The proposed budget for this district includes an annual CPI.increase of
1.79 which increases revenues by $6,133.
Zone 7 1100 and 1200 blocks of Bay Street: This zone was created .at the request of the
property owners who wanted enhanced maintenance for the elm trees along Bay Street.
Currently the revenues received through assessments from this zone cover 90% of the
total maintenance budget. Due to the type and frequency of the. tree. maintenance
involved, there are years where the budget is greater than others. The assessments are
kept stable, and allocations are made from reserves as necessary. The property owners
request that the assessments remain at $150 per property. Staff supports this request, as
there are Sufficient long -term maintenance reserve funds available to fund the proposed
maintenance budget. For FY10-11, the property assessment will be $150 per property.
A copy of the Engineer's Report is on file with the City Clerk's office.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The City funds portions of the districts through the following program budgets: $13,075
from Street Tree and Median Maintenance (001 -4250 66410) and Golf Administration
(601 5305 61060), for the landscape maintenance for Harbor Bay Parkway between
Maitland Drive and Doolittle Drive; $15,000 from Recreation Park Administration .(001-
51110- 61060), for maintaining the shoreline park along Harbor Bay Parkwaywithin zone 5;
$3,000 from Street Tree and Median Maintenance (001 -4250- 66410), for street tree
maintenance for zone 7, and approximately $54,000 is shared by each zone in proportion
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
June 15, 2010
Page 4 of 4
to the value of their annual assessments for the City to administer the Assessment
Districts. These costs are included within the operating budget for each department.
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This action does not affect the Municipal Code.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt resolution approving the Engineer's Report, confirming diagram and assessment,
and ordering levy of assessments for the Island City LLAD 84 -2, all zones.
Approved as to funds and account,
Evelyn Leung
Interim Supervising Accountant
MM.J11 :gc
Exhibit(s):
1. Zones 1 through 7 maps
2. Engineer "s Report (on file in the City Clerk's office)
aloes
.0 tt
'S �N41
ov
qz
Ica
pd
y r di!
KO
v
t4 4 '7
7
w L W L a; Ls I i r.
ct� -s�xx a a 2 4 4 f
Ni Tea ILA
mss[ f3
fit W❑ ti r At
00- CIO pd C7 q •r
�Q`ZGp
a❑ 1
GCS yry
ry -51x7
R?-VIC" t� �t t r
9
Cyr ro
a Z ZI
ZI
a a 4 4
ry •4
fir Lr R •'y ry C1 a t3 'k Rw T L
tI r Q 071 0 C5 �In i v Q v 'ei a
Ca
0
17
a Q a n a a o 'Cl
1 7A dQ
a (Z q U v a a a�❑ a n Q. I
Ln.
N1
c r'- f4 Q
City Council
Exhibit I to
Pub lic Hearing
►�Igenda Item #6 -B w
06-1540
LO
r
f J u
1 z� a =r��c�r
At
V
a L Es
Z-41
zic
r
n no vt 'f�- amt ors 3 xJ F� arn 5 ti
r 16 Lt y s
iz
In
or
70 w COO N
CAI 01 4 1 1
N cam- 'rc
7
./7 T
Crra -rac7
ma y 00-��
00-4-00
$VC J
c Zv- +cam
fer
/0-"0 NJ
.7 a N /I
I
t
41 i
L
S
n i
jj
f f
,tom •f d( D�
,t i z
G.. a ■C: R
w
00-iZ .3D 71p
•Ci
t7
-jog E 1
eyl ON
�;r 17 4
oa -cry W
3 W Oa-7'l fl7
I
3 za 4.0a pit
�n -Q�n
ov -tea
nisi ov -rrc?
►E7 -�rr� -Ll0
3f7 r y
oar
t o-
roc- -,-�e�
!Q- yea
E
7}7 N 3 A
00- zia
Ot7. Ptp V
o0 -rrr7 7 �1
1 �1
i'G2rJ -/40
CO- L700
o f i
rl
v
w a cry I- a�
CIA ra
v nn- 70v�� a v
r= {{?sw ,[gyp
{i L c y
y 7 d.�rl.re r ►.'rr7�
V
jr, rte x Cta
i ?33
u
bi r r►i'm►tv_�
ti 4
I169JO- 049
•C Z -K;
k.
00 C147
x1o
LD TrC� K1Q -DIt1 I� ma t.J f
Immune
IN n a a acs -pry v L, t] e t9 r f
4! ❑o' -map -JLrJ K�C1-{TLG 0410 0.. 0 x
V'40 OPA7
Inc
r
co 'C!D ii nr: 4t L. 'V ME
-a as
/7 A Y
t
i
I IL
11 CA
3A a V"7 r� -te a
j ap- 7crpr A
cQ rzQ ZA
as a!v
a
-00
af= t
jri.r Or 7//VO.L
�i �G- ;7C70t
i
;rO �QO t
pool VN
W~ ao- prs ❑t
r.
as -..a
r
S
0 gal
w x.lc�l
t a t
aim.
r �c i. cx i
r t q. p ij
is C i
r a
Ck
J
i
r
4
6 1
rr3[
ti
1
l f
a
a
r i j
1
f
z
d
it
it
t
z
�f Q-z u
Zz
ZZ
L r
Tom.
�f J ti V
1
F
i L
F h
o
cu
g i C33
to
j
a P
a. tiA
t
4
tlt7 b 'd w
zo
r i At
ro. ilk
X71 a•a r
hj
i Lam[ ta.t
P4 •r
za
a']� a0 -SC's r rf t( r
se G o y
-6
el l
w r
L
fR. sr,
r
!C tq.+ t 1 s g
a M r r i tea
s
Aw"Ir
4 t.•
dv
ca
ar -C
qk
Its
0
ZZI
-CI
lu
-cl
Iz
Ch
Vh
t 'C -i
1p
01
LEE
Ra J:A
xi -W 04 aw 4"S
it
71.1 'AAP
r zi T_ Z rT1
WN! a -4
'ZA
-4 a
14 Ok -4
stir �4 r;
rrt� 3 A 12+ 'l1
�jf� Y y w4° wyr�7 w �.�3 _i.^1 l �."J�. 7
41
4p
IN
KI
%.4 F. n or"
o l
tn 99 'A -11 qma Q� 'a
f'Z
Qn.Q94 4L ft ga f4 dk le VA %3
r.
eb t
ta
-1 qZ6
N
rti „�,..i 'l T w r r �1 r w a 4 r..,ry •.n+� vr r..� r r. .S
Q Q q Oil Rao
43
CA
Q
WA "a
--Uq4"
tki Zj%' zk
l6q
4X
ca: J IM
03
cc
aw
ti y onz yK E
1 r-F+4 0 j L3 E
r yam■
w.t
y r
z.
T y tt 'N+� V TI t
ZL
*IV T2
Y
r w
r
y
r f i r w _�•i r.
Lj
C d 1z
L7 Q w r
ILK 1h,
Q
Lp
PVL
tp
LO
r w y
.W.. C �L] w w i i Sip
71 .w
•JFL it
y
ip
wo
AV s
.L
T
ZI -r
1 r
Y 1
T
1 r
s -...r. L. •r.. .r.....w s. 4... .n. a•i_ r- .r.. -...r__. n v y �..............r...«. s...«... w��. t_._�.-- r+....... �.1
CLI
-Ic ago
a
I
w s
.All is
cool r
Y
r� -77!7
.70-L117 •3•T- r_C
r� -fi
S ri r� "Y"
:7• ?rQ
N
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
Um
0
U.
0
A
APPROVING THE ENGINEER'S REPORT, CONFIRMING
DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT, AND ORDERING LEVY OF
ASSESSMENTS, ISLAND CITY LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING
DISTRICT 84--2, ALL ZONES
WHEREAS, by its Resolution No. 14181, a resolution directing preparation
of an Annual Report for Island City Landscaping and Lighting District (LLAD).84-2,
this Council designated the City Engineer, as Engineer. of Work and ordered said
Engineer of Work to make and file a report in writing in accordance with and
pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972; and
WHEREAS, the report was duly made and filed with the City Clerk
considered by this Council and found to be sufficient in every particular,
whereupon it was determined that the report should stand as. the. Engineer's
Report for all subsequent proceedings under and pursuant to. the aforesaid
resolution, and that on Tuesday, June 15 2009, at the hour of 7:00 o'clock p.m., in
the regular meeting place of this Council, Council Chambers, Alameda City Hall,
2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Alameda, California, was appointed as .the time and
place for a hearing by this Council on the question of the levy of the proposed
assessment, notice of which hearing was duly and regularly published; and
WHEREAS, at the appointed time and place the hearing was duly and
regularly held, and all persons interested, desiring to be heard, were given an
opportunity to be heard, and all matters and things pertaining to the leery were fully
heard and considered by this Council, and all oral statements and. all written
protests or communications were duly heard, considered, and overruled, and this
Council thereby acquired jurisdiction to order the levy and the confirmation of the
diagram and assessment prepared by and made a part of the Engineer's Report to
pay the costs and expenses thereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that:
1. No vote of the property owners is required because proposed
increases are allowed based on previous approval of the property owners owning
more than fifty percent of the area of assessable lands within the District.
2. The public interest, convenience, and necessity require that the levy
be made.
3. The District benefited by the improvements are to be assessed to
pay the costs and expenses thereof, and the exterior boundaries thereof, are as
shown by a neap thereof filed in the office of the City Clerk, which neap is Made a
part hereof by reference thereto.
Resolution #6 -13
05 -15 -10
4. The Engineer's Report as a whole and each part thereof to whit:
(a) the Engineer of work's estimate of the itemized and total
costs and expenses of maintaining the improvements and of the incidental
expenses in connection therewith;
(b) the diagram showing the assessment district, plans, and
specifications for the improvements to be maintained and the boundaries and
dimensions of the respective lots and parcels of land within the. District; and
(c) the assessment of the .total amount of the cost and expenses
of the proposed maintenance of the improvements upon the several lots and
parcels of land in the District in proportion to the estimated .benefits to be received
by such lots and parcels, respectively, from the maintenance, and of the expenses
incidental thereto= is finally approve and confirmed.
5. Final adoption and approval of the Engineer's Report as a whole,
and of the plans and specifications, the estimate of the costs and expenses, the
diagram and the assessment, as contained in the report, as hereinab ove
determined and ordered, shall refer and apply to the report, or. any portion thereof,
as amended, modified, or revised or corrected by, or pursuant to and in
accordance with, any resolution or order, if any, heretofore duly adopted or made
by this council.
6. The assessment to pay the costs and expenses of the maintenance
of the improvements is hereby levied. For further particulars pursuant to the
provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, reference is hereby made
to the Resolution directing preparation of Annual Report.
7. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, including the
Engineer's Report, offered and received at. the hearing, this council expressly
finds and determines (a) that each of the several lots and parcels of Ia nd.will be
specially benefited by the maintenance of the improvements at least. in the
amount, if not more than the amount, of the assessment apportioned against the
lots and parcels of land, respectively, and (b) that there is substantial evidence to
support, and the weight of the evidence preponderates in favor. of, the aforesaid
findings and determination as to special benefits.
S. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution, but in no event. later
than the third Monday in August following such adoption, the city clerk shall file.a
certified copy of the diagram and assessment, and a certified copy of this
resolution with the Auditor of the county of Alameda. Upon such filing, the county
Auditor shall enter on the County assessment roll opposite each lot or parcel of
land the amount of assessment thereupon as shown in the assessment. roll
opposite each lot or parcel of land the amount of assessment thereupon as shown
in the assessment. The assessments shall be collected at the same time and in
the same manner as county taxes are collected, and all laws providing for the
collection and enforcement of county taxes shall apply to the collection and
enforcement of the assessments. After collection by the county of Alameda, the
net amount of the assessments, after deduction of any compensation due the
County for collection, shall be paid to the Director of Finance of this city.
9. Upon receipt of moneys representing assessments collected by the
County, the Director of Finance of this city of Alameda shall deposit the moneys in
the city Treasury to the credit of an improvement fund, which improvement fund
the Director of Finance of this city is hereby directed to establish under the
distinctive designation of the District. Moneys in the improvement fund shall be
expended upon for the maintenance of the improvements.
1, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly
and regularly adopted and passed by the council of the city of Alameda in a
regular meeting assembled on the 1 5 th day of June, 2010, by the following vote to
wit:
AYES
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, 1 have hereunto set my hand and affixed the
official seal of said city this 16 th day of June, 2010.
Lara Weisiger, city clerk
City of Alameda
CITY O F ALAM E DA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the city Council
From: Ann Marie Gallant
Interim city Manager
Date: June 15, 2010
Re: Hold a Public Hearing to Adopt a resolution Approving the Engineer's
Report, confirming Diagram and Assessment, and ordering Levy of
Assessments Maintenance Assessment District 01-01 Marina cove
BACKGROUND
On February 3, 2010, the city council, in accordance with the Landscape and Lighting Act
of 19 72 appointed an engineer and an attorney for the annual proceedings associated with
the Maintenance Assessment District (MAD) 01 0 (Marina cove), and authorized the
preparation of the Engineer's Report. On April 20, 2010, the city council preliminarily
approved the Engineer's Report, declared an intention to order levy and collection of
assessment, and set a hearing for June 15, 2010.
DISCUSSION
The Engineer's report was prepared in accordance with section 22565 et seq. of the
California streets and Highways code. The report provides an estimated annual budget to
maintain the public improvements within MAD. when MAD was established, an automatic
Consumer Price Index (CPI) increase was pre approved. Accordingly, staff recommends
that the assessments be increased by 1.79 which is the CPI for the Bay Area for the
year ending February 2010, and a vote of the property owners is not required. A copy of
the Engineer's Report is on file with the City Clerk's office.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
MAD was created to maintain public improvements associated with the Marina cove
development. The funds that are not expended in a fiscal year remain within the
assessment district and may be used for future expenses. The city's cost to administer
MAD, including full city cost allocation, is approximately $6,200 and is included within the
proposed budget. There is no impact to the General Fund.
City Council
Public Hearing
Agenda item #6 -C
r
Honorable Ma and June 15, 2010
Members of the Cit Council Pa 2 of 2
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This action does not affect the Municipal Code.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution approvin the En Report, confirmin dia and assessment,
and orderin lev of assessments, MAD a1 -01 (Marina Cove).
Respectful :Y s ubmitted,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
Approved as to funds and account,
v&A t r t
Evel Leun
Interim Supervisin Accountant
MM:JW:
Exhibit(s):
1. En Report (on file in the Cit Clerk's office)
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
APPROVING THE ENGINEER'S REPORT, CONFIRMING DIAGRAM
AND ASSESSMENT AND ORDERING LEVY OF ASSESSMENTS,
MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 01 -01 (MARINA COVE)
0
0
WHEREAS, by its Resolution No. 14132, a resolution directing preparation of
an Annual Report for Maintenance Assessment District 01 -01 (Marina cove), this city
Council designated the city Engineer, as Engineer of Work and ordered said
Engineer of Work to make and file a report in writing in accordance with and pursuant
to the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972; and
WHEREAS, said report was duly made and filed with the city clerk and was
presented to the city council for consideration; and
WHEREAS, said Council considered said report and each and every part
hereof and found that it contained all the matters and things_ _called for by the
provisions of said Code and said Resolution No. 14182, including; (1) plans and
specifications of the existing improvements and proposed improvements, (2).estimate
of costs (3) diagram of the district, and (4) an assessment according to the benefits,
all of which was done in the form and manner required by such Code; and
WHEREAS, it was determined that the report should stand as the Engineer's
Report for all subsequent proceedings under and pursuant. to the aforesaid
resolution, and that on Tuesday, June 15, 2009, at the hour of 7.00 o'clock p.m., in
the regular meeting place of this city council, council chambers, Alameda City.Hall,
22.03 Santa Clara Avenue, Alameda, California, was appointed as the time and place
for a hearing of protests in relation to the formation of a maintenance a. ssessment
district pursuant to the city of Alameda's Maintenance Procedure Code, to said
proposed improvements and the levy of the proposed assessment; and
WHEREAS, it appears that notices of said hearings were duly and regularly
published and mailed in the time, form and manner required by said Code, as
evidence by the affidavits and certificates on file with said city clerk; and
WHEREAS, persons interested in objecting to the formation of said
maintenance assessment district, or of said improvements, including the
maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, or to the extent of the maintenance
assessment district, or any zones therein, or to the proposed assessment or diagram,
or to the Engineer's estimate of costs thereof, were given an opportunity to be heard,
and all matters and things pertaining to the levy were fully heard and considered by
this city council, and all oral statements and all written protests or communications
were duly heard, considered and overruled, and this city council, thereby acquired
jurisdiction to order the levy and the confirmation of the diagram and assessment
prepared by and made a part of the Engineer's Report to pay the costs and expenses
thereof;
Resolution #6 -C
06 -15 -10
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that:
1. The property owners owning more than 50% of the area of
assessable lands within the District had not, at the conclusion of the hearing, filed
written protests against the proposed levy, as a whole or as to any part thereof, or
against the District or the extent thereof to be assessed for the costs and expenses of
the levy as a whole, or as to any part thereof, or against the Engineer of Work's
estimate of costs and expenses, in whole or in part, or against the maps and
description, in whole or in part, or against the diagram or the assessment to pay for
the costs and expenses thereof, in whole or in part.
2. The public interest, convenience, and necessity require that the
levy be made.
3. The District benefited by the improvements and will be assessed
for said costs for the construction or installation of the .improvements, includin g the
maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, are situated in the City of Alameda,
California, the exterior boundaries thereof, are as shown by a reap thereof filed in the
office of the city clerk, which map is made a part hereof by reference thereto.
4. That said district be, and is hereby designated as "city of
Alameda Maintenance Assessment District 01 -01" by which name it shall .hereafter
be referred to in all subsequent proceedings, including proceedings for the lev y and
collection of assessments,
5. The Engineer's Report as a whole and each part thereof, to whit:
(a) The Engineer of Work's estimate of the itemized and total
costs and expenses of maintaining the improvements and of the incidental.ex p enses
in connection therewith;
(b) The diagram showing the assessment district, plans, and
specifications for the improvements to be maintained and the. boundaries and
dimensions of the respective lots and parcels of land within the District; and
(c) The assessment of the total amount of the cost and
expenses of the proposed maintenance of the improvements upon the several lots .or
parcels of land in the District in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by
such lots and parcels, respectively, from said improvements, including the
maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, and of the expenses incidental thereto, is
finally approved and confirmed.
0. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, including the
Engineer's Report, offered and received at the hearing, this council expressly finds
and determines (a) that each of the several lots and parcels of land will be specially
benefited by the maintenance of the improvements at least in the amount, if not more
than the amount, of the assessment apportioned against the lots and parcels of land,
respectively, and (b) that there is substantial evidence to support, and the weight of
the evidence preponderates in favor of, the aforesaid findings and determination as
to special benefits.
7. Upon the adoption of this resolution, but in no event later than
the third Monday in August following such adoption, the City Clerk shall file a certified
copy of the diagram and assessment and a certified copy of this resolution with the
Auditor of the County of Alameda. Upon such filing, the County Auditor shall enter on
the County assessment roll opposite each lot or parcel of land the amount of
assessment thereupon as shown in the assessment roll opposite each lot or parcel of
land the amount of assessment thereupon as shown in the assessment. The
assessments shall be collected at the same time and in the same manner as County
taxes are collected, and all laws providing for the collection and enforcement of
County taxes shall apply to the collection and enforcement of the assessments. After
collection by the County of Alameda, the net amount of the assessments, after
deduction of any compensation due the County for collection, shall be paid to the
Director of Finance of this City.
S. Upon receipt of moneys representing assessments collected by
the County, the Director of Finance of this City of Alameda shall deposit the moneys
in the City Treasury to the credit of an improvement fund, which improvement fund
the Director of Finance of this City is hereby directed to establish under the distinctive
designation of the District. Moneys in the improvement fund shall be expended upon
for the maintenance of the improvements.
1, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular
meeting assembled on the 15 th day of June, 2010, by the followin g vote to wit:
AYES:
DOES:
ABSENT:
ABSENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal
of said City this 16 th day of June, 2010.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAM EDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the city council
From: Ann Marie Gallant
Interim city Manager
Date: June 15, 2010
Re: Hold a Public Hearing to Adopt a Resolution Establishing Integrated
Waste collection Ceiling Rates and Service Fees for Alameda county
Industries, Inc., for Rate Period 9 (July 2010 to June 2011) and Allocate
$210.000 from the Integrated Waste Manaaernent Account
BACKGROUND
On April 10, 2002, the City entered into a franchise agreement with Alameda County
Industries, Inc., (ACI) for the curbside collection of solid waste, the collection and
processing of recyclable materials, and the collection of organic materials, collectively
referred to as integrated waste (IW). In May 2009, the terra of the agreement was
extended to 2022. Through a separate agreement, the city contracts with waste
Management, Inc. (WM) for the transferring and landfilling of the solid waste. ACI is
responsible for managing and paying all costs and fees, including WM charges,
associated with the collection, processing, and disposal of the Iw, as well as directly
billing all residential and commercial customers.
DISCUSSION
The Alameda Municipal code specifies that the ceiling rates for the collection and
processing of Iw will be set by the city council at a public hearing. The ceiling rate is
established to generate sufficient revenues to recover all costs and fees associated with
the agreements with ACI and WIVI. The agreement with Act specifies two types of
annual rate reviews: an index -based and a cost -based adjustment. The latter
adjustment is a detailed rate review that is conducted every third year of the agreement.
An index -based adjustment, which is conducted in the interim years, requires the ceiling
rates to be adjusted by three specific consumer Price Index categories. The current
rate review, Rate Period 9 (RP 9), is for FY10 -11. It is a cost -based adjustment and
uses the actual expenses and revenues for Rate Period 7 (RP 7
Proposed cost -Based Ceil Rate Adjustment:
In accordance with the franchise agreement, ACI submitted a rate application for RP 9
on December 30 2009. The city contracted with Hilton, Farnkoph Dobson (HF&H) to
provide staff with a comprehensive analysis of the application. As indicated in HF &H's
executive summary (Exhibit 1), it was determined that the revenues received in RP7
were $280,984 below the amount projected for that rate period.. This. shortfaii ..in
City Council
Public Hearing
Agenda Item ##C
Honorable Mayor and June 15, 2010
Members of the city council Page 2 of 4
revenue is due to a decrease in customers, most notably, commercial customers, and a
shift of residential customers from a 32- gallon service to a 20- gallon service. currently,
more than 33% of the city's residential customers receive 20- gallon service.
Assuming the current level of customers, the projected revenue for RP 9 is forecasted
to be $1,1'10,889 short of the current rate structure, requiring ceiling rates to be
increased by 7.3 The additional revenue required for RP 9 (7.3% increase in rates) is
attributed to the following factors:
$105,524 (0.7 is due to increases in labor related costs (i.e., union hourly
wage rates, health and welfare premiums, workers compensation expenses).
<$107,394> (-1.1%) is associated with non -labor related costs such as fuel,
liability insurance premiums, vehicle insurance premiums, telephone expenses,
and outside repairs. The reduction is primarily due to fuel costs.
(0.5 is due to increases in solid waste tip fees, including the county
per tonnage fee.
0 $70,088 (0.7 is due to increases in organic materials processing costs.
<$50,871 -0.4 is associated with other allowed costs such as rent,
insurance, and customer service operational costs.
$480,905 (3.2 is the revenue shortfall from RP 7.
$503,053 (3.7 is the projected revenue shortfall RP 9.
HF &H's Review of ACT's Rate Application for Rate Period 9 is on file in the city clerk's
office.
Negotiated Adjustment to Reduce Revenue Re uirement:
In recognition of the current economic climate and the adverse impacts associated with
a 7.3% rate increase on the city's residents and business community, the city and ACI
have agreed to contribute funds so the increase to .customers is set at 5 To achieve
this reduced increase, ACl has agreed to a one -time reduction in profit of $140,000, and
the City will provide a one -time contribution of $210,000 from the City's lv` Management
Fund reserves. A 5% increase would result in an approximate increase of $1.47 per
month for a 32- gallon residential customer.
The following table lists the proposed ceiling rate increases for residential services.
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
June 15, 2010
Page 3 of 4
Monthly Integrated Waste Management (IWIVI) Rates
Cart Size
(Gallons)
Existing Rates
Proposed Rates
IWM
Rates
Senior
Discount
Rate
Low Income
Discount
Rate
IWM
Rates
Senior
Discount
Rate
Low Income
Discount
Rate
20
$18.83
$15.92
$15.93
$19.67
$16.72
$16.72
32
$29.48
$25.05
$25.05
$30.95
$26.31
$26.31
64
49.21
N/A
$41.83
$51.67
N/A
$43.92
96
68.73
N/A
$58.42
72.17
N/A
The list of all proposed ceiling rates and fees is included as Exhibit 2.
Rates Charged By other Alameda County Agencies
HF &H conducted a telephone and web survey of .the 17 agencies in Alameda County to
compare the City's proposed rate with other agenncies' rates, and to assess the specific
types of collection services offered in other agencies. As shown in Exhibit 3, rates for a
typical 32- gallon service vary from a low of $11.31 per month (Emeryville) to a high of
$46.7'1 per month (Piedmont), an approximate 395% difference. This broad variation in
rates illustrates rates are directly affected by the diversity of collection services offered
and that the proximity of the agency to a transfer station.
Services and discounts provided to Alameda residents and commercial customers are
more comprehensive than other agencies in Alameda County and the rates, therefore,
would be expected to be higher than the average rate in the county. Comprehensive
services include: the drop -off of household batteries; the curbside pick -up of used oil
including multi- family; and the collection of food -waste for multi- family units and
restaurants. ACI is also required to maintain a fully staffed local office, offer a senior
discount rate, and provide no -cost collection services at 12 citywide events for non profit
agencies, which is not typical for other Alameda County agencies. The City also
provides discounts for senior and low income residents, group billing discounts for multi-
plex and multi- family units, and no cost food waste recycling for commercial customers
for the first 96- gallons and a 20% discount thereafter. In addition, unlike other cities in
the county, Alameda is responsible for the post closure costs.. associated with the
maintenance and regulatory requirements for the Doolittle Landfill. The rate provides a
funding source for these enhanced services.
Recyclable Material Commodity Revenue share:
In 2009, as part of the franchise extension, the City and ACI negotiated a sharing of the
revenues received from the sale of recyclable materials collected from the City's
residents and businesses. Based on the agreement, revenues would be shared as
follows: 1) the first $26 of the average price per ton would be revenue to ACI; 2) the
Honorable Mayor and June 15, 2010
Members of the city council Page 4 of 4
amount between $20.01 and $80.00 average price per ton would be shared 75% ACI
and 25% city; and 3) the amount above $80.00 average price per ton would be shared
25% ACI and 75% City. Based on current revenues for recyclable materials, RP 0
revenue projection assumes an average of $01.32 per ton. Depending on the actual
price of the revenues received, adjustments will be made as part of the revenue
reconciliation for RP 11 (FY1 2-13).
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The City receives a ten percent franchise fee from ACI on gross receipts. The proposed
increase in the ceiling rates will provide approximately $7x',000 in additional franchise
fees to the city. Funds are available in the IW Management Fund 274.1 for a $200,000
one time contribution towards rate stabilization.
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
The city's IW Management Program is consistent with the General Plan Health
Safety Element Guiding Policy 8.4.k. and the Local Action Plan.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution establishing IW collection ceiling rates and service fees for ACI for
RP 9 (July 2010 to June 2011) and allocate $210,000 from the IW Management
account.
Respe sub *tted,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
App oved as to funds and account,
Evelyn Leung
Interim Supervising Accountant
Exhibits
1. Review of ACT's Rate Application for Rate Period 0 Executive Summary only
2. Proposed ceiling Rates and Fees
3. Graph of Rate comparable Jurisdictions
4. Review of ACI's Rate Application for Rate Period 9 (on file in the city clerk's office)
0
i
This document is printed on 100% post consumer content recycled paper
Mana To morroV s Resources Toda
201 N. Civic Drive, Suite 230
Walnut Creek,, California 94596
Telephone: 925/977-6950
Fax.- 925/977-6955
www.hfh-consultants,com
June 8, 2010
Mr. Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
Cit of Alameda
Alameda Point, Buildin 1
950 West Mail S Suite 110
Alameda, CA 94501-7552
Robert D. Hilton, CMC
John W. Farn kopt PE
Laity B. Ezzet,, CMC
Richard J. Simonson, CMC
Marva M. Sheehan, CPA
Subject: Final Report: Review of Alameda Count Industries Rate Period Nine Contractor's Rate
Application
Reference Number: 53780
Dear Mr. Naclerio:
This report documents HF&H Consultants,, LLC's (HF&H"s) findin and recommendations to the Cit of
Alameda (Cit from our review of Alameda Count Industries' (ACI) Rate Period Nine (RP9) Contractor's
Rate Application (Application).
Revi'ew of ACIs Rate Applikati"on
Based on our review of AG's Application, we have projected a $1,110,889 revenue shortfall for RP9 (Jul
1 2010 throu June 30, 2011), re a 7.3% rate increas The projected shortfall is based on
several ad to ACI's Application (a upon b Cit staff, ACI mana and HF&H) as
described in Section V of the report and reflected in Attachment 1. The 7.3% rate increase results
primaril from a decline in projected revenues due to downsizin of service levels b residential and
commercial customers and from closure of residential and commercial accounts and a sli increase in
ACI"s operatin costs. As a result, last y ear's 9.47% rate increase produced approximatel a 5.77%
increase in revenue or 3.7% less than anticipated. The followin table summarizes the components of
the rate increase:
Managing Tnmonow/s Resources Toda
Mr. Matthew l[Naclerio
June D
Pa 2 of 5
I Rate Increase Components I
lcurrentoperations
Labor-Related Costs (Wa
03%
vehiclenelatedCosts (Fuel/Tires/Parts)
Food Scrap Processing Tip Fee Increase
0.7m
Solid Waste Tip Fee Increase
0.5m
Other (Rent/Op Insurance/Customer Service)
-0.4%
nY7 Revenue Shortfall
|RY9proJected Revenue Shortfall 37%
ACI"s operating costs have increased �4%,,mostly asaresult of decreases in fuel costs and e decrease in
the volume of tonnage collected and processed/disposed. Therefore, the main contributor to the
necessary rate increase is recent and projected shortfalls in revenue billed and collected for such
services. In accordance with Section 8.12 of the Franchise Agreement,. upon completion of a Rate Period
(in this case, RP7 —]u|y 2008 through June 2009), the actual revenue received is compared to AC|'s
allowable compensation and the variance b either added toor subtracted fromAC|'sforthcomfngnate
application. In this case, RP7 revenues came in 3.296 less than ACys allowable compensation; therefore,
ACI is afforded an additional 3.2% increase in RP9 to compensate for the RP7 loss. |n addition, based on
projected revenue using current rates and current subscr(ption levels, revenue forRP9 is expected to
generate approximately $55O^OOO less than required, requiring an additional 3.796 increase. The revenue
shortfall is primarily the result of fewer commercial accounts, fewer debris box pulls, and the
"'downsizin of residential accounts.
As we have seen |n other jurisdictions over the past few years during the economic slow down, many
customers are migrating from higher-priced large volume containers (ie,64-gallon, 96-gallon) to
smaller lower-priced containers (i.e., 20-ga|kon) to reduce the monthly costs. As with many
jurisdictions, the City rate structure encourages customers to "downs(ze" their solid waste container
by placing more materials in their recyc material and organics carts rather than in their solid waste
containers; ultimately, reducing the amount of trash sent to the landfill. The following table illustrates
the success of this rate structure, where over a third of the City s residents now subscribe to 20-ga\hon
solid w@ste service. Approximately 1% 1.5% of residents migrate to a 20-gall.on container each year.
Mana Tomorrow's Resources Toda
Mr. Matthew T. Naclerio
June 8 2010
Pa 3 of 5
I Residential Customer Distribution and Current Rates I
10- g allon
0.5%
S9.37
month
20-
33.6%
$18.73
month
3 )2 Z� r a I I o n
59.4%
S29-48
month
64-
4.5%
$49-21
month
96-
10%
S6833
i month
100.0%
As customers reduce their container size, less revenue is g enerated; however, there is not an e
reduction the cost to drive b collect, and process the materials is the same re of the container
size. Durin our review we found the fixed costs per residential account to. be approximatel
$33/month; therefore, onl 6.5% of residents (those customers receivin 64- or 96- service) cover
the fixed costs to provide such service. The City has been able to keep the residential rates lower than
necessar because., as is industr practice, commercial and debris box revenues have contributed more
than the cost of their services. Because of these factors, in the future, the Cit should consider
increasin the 10- and 20- rates a g reater percenta than the 32-,, 64-,, and 9 6- gallon rates
to have them pa a lar percenta of their fixed costs but still be si lower than the 32-
g allon rate to incentivize customers to reduce the amount of materials disposed of in the landfill.
Ne ACI to Reduce the Necessar Increase
As discussed above, rate revenue (assumin current rates) is pro to produce a 7.3% or $1,110,.889
revenue shortfall for the forthcomin y ear. Understandin rates increased 9.47% last y ear., HF&H, Cit
staff, and ACI mana ne an alternative to keep the rate increase as low as possible in li
of the current economic slowdown. ICI has a to a one-time reduction in profit of $140,000 if the
Cit is able to provide a one-time contribution of $210,000 from reserves in the City's Inte Waste
Mana Fund.
Rate Adj Results
per A
Rate Adj
Methodolo
Aftern ative
Projected Revenue at Current Rates) 15,268,698
15,268,698
Plus: Cit One-time Contribution
210,000
A Adjusted Revenue Projection 15,268,698 15,478,698
Revenue Re 16,379,587 16,379,587
less: AC[ One-time Reduction (1401000)
B Adjusted Revenue Re 16,3 '9,587 16,239,,587
C [A Surplus/(Shortfall) (1,110,889) (760,889)
-C A Increase 7.3% 5.0%
Manag
Mana TomorroWs Resources Toda
Mr. Matthew T. Naclerio
June 8, 2010
Pa 4 of 5
Surve of Comparable Rates
Attachment 2 shows the results of HF&H's surve of solid waste rates for jurisdictions located
throu the Ba Area as of Ma 1,. 2010 (except where noted). We have applied the base increase of
5.0% to the Cit current rates for purposes of comparin ACI"s rates to other jurisdictions. It should be
noted that the comparable jurisdictions will be considerin rate increases either Jul 1, 2010 or Januar
1 2011, but the are unknown at this time.
Residential rates for a 30-35 g allon container ran from $11.81/month (Emer to $46.7 /month
(Piedmont), while ACI's proposed rate is $30.95/month or 21.7% hi than the avera of the Ba
Area jurisdictions included in the surve (a g raph of 30-35 g allon rates is included as Attachment 3).
Commercial rates for a 1- bin serviced one time per week ran from $63.53/month (Dublin) to
$199.86/month (Castro Valle Sanitar District), while ACI'*s proposed rate is $117.2 /month, which is
12.1% more than the avera of the Ba Area jurisdictions included in the surve
We caution the Cit that this surve is presented for information onl The should not draw
conclusions from this information., because rate comparisons are intrinsicall difficult and often
misleadin This difficult results from differences in items such as:
1. The services provided (Attachment 4 provides a summar of some ke "extra" services provided
b ACI that ma not be provided or onl partiall provided) to other jurisdictions
2. The terrain in which the service is performed
I Disposal costs;
4. Rate structures as illustrated in the rate surve where two other jurisdictions have hi 32-
g allon rates however, six other jurisdictions have a hi rate for commercial 1 cubic y ard bin
serviced ix/; and,
5. Governmental fees (e. franchise fees, vehicle impact fees, etc.)
Mana TomorroVs Resources Toda
Mr. Matthew T. Naclerio
June 8, 2010
Pa 5 of 5
HF&H Recommendations
Based on our review of ACI"s. Application, the Cit current rate structure, and additional ne
between HF&H, Cit staff, and ACI mana we recommend the followin
1. A 7.3% increase in maximum rates or a 5.0% increase in maximum rates with a one-time
$210,000 revenue contribution from the Cit and a one-time $140,0 ®o profit reduction from
ACI.
2. With future rate increases, consider revisin the current rate structure to increase rates so that
the fixed cost of service is redistributed within the rate structure.
We would like to express our appreciation to ACI mana and staff for their assistance. In addition,
we express our appreciation to y ou and Maria DiMe for assistance and g uidance durin the course of
the review. Should y ou have an y q uestions, please call Rick Simonson at 925-977-6957.
Ver trul y ours,
HF&H CONSULTANTS, LLC
R'I'chard J. Simonson
Vice President
cc: Ms. Mar McLean, Cit of Alameda
Ms. Maria DiMe Cit of Alameda
Mr. Louie Pelle Alameda Count Industries
Mr. Kent Kenne Alameda Count Industries
Effective Juh L 2010
Quarterly Integrated 'Waste Management (IWM) Rates
Size (Gallons)
20
32
64
96
Extra Garbage Bag Stickers
Service level changes in excess of once in a twelve month Period $17.85
Multi- Family Premises
Effective July, l 2010
Monthly Multi Family Bin and Cart Rates
Container Size
(Cubic Yards)
1
1.5
2
3
4
5
n
7
Container Size
(Cubic Yards)
1
1.5
2
3
4
5
6
7
Special Pickups, Same -Day Service,
or Non Collection Day Services
Container Size
(Cubic Wards)
1
1.5
2
3
4
5
6
7
Cart Size
20
32
64
rLf�:'•.1fTl f7 mc.1I rai foc vIcel ur.h mitcd �ccychnq. cofterno L i5 f -1.+3 per d
;'axim?]m mori,fiiy rate fo .`dee'dv unlini l ed arga c 4i €ater s ccAl is $2 .655 Cec
Service level changes in excess of once in a twelve month Period $17.85
IiTR M Rates
$59,00
$92,86
$155.00
$216.50
$5.94
Commercial Bin
1
$117.21
$175.82
$234.42
$351.63
$468.84
$586.05
$703.26
$820A7
Commercial Bin
Compactor Service:
1
$234.42
$351.63
$468.84
$703,26
$937.68
$1,172.11
$1,406.53
$1,640.95
Maximum Rate Per
Collection
$57.92
$861.89
$115.85
$1 73.77
$231.70
$289.62
$347.54
$405.4
Commercial Cart
1
$9.00
$20.28
$41,00
$61.49
Senior
3
Discount
$236.77
Rate
LIRA Discount Rate
$50.15
$50.15
$78.93
$78.93
NIA
$131.75
NIA
$184.02
2
3
4
$236.77
$358.66
$482.91
$355.15
$538.00
$724.36
$473.53
$717.33
$965.81
$710.30
$1,075.99
$1,448.72
$947,06
$1,434,66
$1,931.63
$1,183.83
$1,793,32
$2,414.54
$1,420.59
$2,153.99
$2,897.44
$1,657.36
$2,510.65
$3,380.35
2
3
4
$473.53
$717.33
$965.81
$710.30
$1,075.99
$1,448.72
$947.06
$1,434.66
$1,931.63
$1,420.59
$2,151.99
$2,897.46
$1,894.12
$2,869.31
$3,863.26
$2,367.65
$3,586.64
$4,823.07
$2,841.18
$4,303.97
$5,794.89
$3,314.71
$5,021.30
$6,760.70
Additional
Services
Service Type Rate
Locks, Keys, Hasps $25.00
Stearn: Cleaning
Per Cleaning $88.44
5 6
$609.49 $738.43
$914.24 $1,1
$1,218.99 $1,476.$5
$1,823.48 $2,215.28
$2 $2,95$2,95171 $3,047.47 $3,692.13
$3,656.97 $4,430.56
$4,266.46 $5,168.98
5 6
$1,218.99 $1,476.85
$1,828.48 $2,215.28
$2,437.98 $2,953.71
$3,656.97 $4,430.56
$4,875.96 $5,907.41
$6,094.35 $7,384.26
$7,313.94 $8,861.12
$8,532.93 $10,337.97
2
3
4
5
6
$17.99
$2x.99
$35.98
$44.95
$53.97
$40,56
$60,84
$81.12
$101.40
$121.68
$81.99
$122.99
$163.99
$204.98
$245.98
$12199
$184.48
$245.98
$307,47
$368.97
City Council
Exhibit 2 to
Public Hearing
Agenda Item #6-D
06 -15 -10
�'AL' V4 LiAt A iA LL 44
EITecti� Jule' I. 20110
Effective July 1, 20 103
Monthly Push /Pull Charges for Multi- Family Dwellings
Includes bringing container from its location on your property to the
curb for servicing,
and returning the container to your property when empty.
Linear Feet
(Range)
1 20'
21 40'
41 60'
61 801'
81 1003'
101 120`
121 140'
141 1601'
161 -180
181 200'
2031 220'
221 2401'
241 260'
261 280'
281 --300'
Monthly PushlPull Charges for Multi Family Dwellings
Includes bringing the container to the curb for servicing. Container will
be left at the curb, empty.
Linear Feet
(Range)
1 20'
21 403
41 60'
61 80`
81 -100
101 120`
121 144'
141 160'
161 180'
181 200`
201 220'
221 2403'
241 260'
261 2803'
281 -3030'
Monthly Push /Pull Charges for Multi- Family Dwellings
Includes returning the container from the curb to the property after
servicing is performed.
Linear Feet
(Range
1 20'
21 40'
41 60'
61 80'
81 109'
101 1210`
121 140'
14"1 160'
i
161 180'
181 20303'
i
20 1 220'
221 240'
241 260'
261 280'
281
Weekly Collection
1
2
3
4
5
6
$17,70
$35.41
$53.11
$70,82
$88.52
$106,23
$35,41
$79.82
$106.23
$141,63
$177.014
$212.45
$53.11
$106.23
$159,34
$212.4-
$265.56
$31868
$70.82
$141.63
$212.45
$283,27
$354.08
$424.90
$88.52
$177.04
$265,56
$354,05
$442.61
$449.35
$196.23
$212.45
$318.68
$424.901
$531.
$637.35
$123.93
$247.86
$371.79
$495.72
$619.65
$743.58
$141.63
$283.27
$424.90
$566.54
$708.17
$849.80
$159.34
$318.67
$478.91
$637.3-5
$796,69
$956:03
$177.074
$354,08
$531.13
$708.17
$885.21
$1,062°25
$194.75
$380.49
$584.24
$778.99
$97373
$1,168.48
$212.45
$424n907
$637.35
$849.80
$1,062.25
$1,274.71
$2303.16
$460.31
$690.47
$920.62
$1,1503.78
$1,380.93
$247.86
$495.72
$743.58
$991.44
$1,239,30
$1,487'. 16
$265.56
$531.13
$796.69
$1,062.25
$1,327.82
$1,593.38
Weekly Collection
1
2
3
4
5
6
$103.62
$21.25
$31.86
$42.503
$53.11
$63.73
X 21 -25
$4.2.,5.01.
$63..70.
$8.498
$19,23
$.1.2.7..4.7................
$31.86
$63.73
$95,61
$127.47
$159.34
$191.20
$42.501
$84.98
$127.47
$169.96
$212.34
$254.95
$53.`11
$106.23
$159.34
$212.45
$265.56
$318.68
$63.73
$127.47
$'191.20
$254095
$318.68
$382.41
$74,36
$148.72
$223,07
$297.43
$371,79
$446,15
$84,98
$169.96
$254.95
$339.92
$424,90
$5039.88
$95.61
$191.24
$286.81
$382.41
$478.01
$573.62
$106.23
$212.45
$318.68
$424.90
$531.13
$637,35
$116.84
$233.70
$350-54
$467.40
$584,24
$701.68
$127.47
$254.95
$382.41
$509,88
$63735
$764.83
$138.079
$276.18
$414,28
$552.38
$690.47
$828.56
$148.72
$297.56
$446.15
$594,86
$743,58
$892,30
$159.34
$318.69
$478.01
$637,35
$796.69
$956.03
Weekly Collection
1
2
3
4
5
6
$7,09
$14,16
$21.25
$28,32
$35.41
$42,50
$14.'16
$28.32
$42.50
$56 -66
$70 -82
$134 -98
$21.25
$42.50
$63.73
$84.98
$106.23
$127.47
$28,32
$56,66
$84.98
$113,31
$141,63
$169.96
$35.41
$70.82
$106.23
$141,63
$177,034
$212.45
$42.50
$84.98
$127.47
$169.36
$212.45
$254.95
$49.57
$99,14
$148,72
$198,29
$247.86
$297.43
$56.66
$113.31
$169.96
$226.61
$28127
$339.92
$63,70
$127.47
$191.203
$254.95
$318,68
$382.38
$79,82
$141.63
$212.45
$28127
$354.118
$424.90
$77.903
$155.79
$233.79
$311,59
$389,49
$467,40
$84.98
$169.96
$254.95
$339.92
$424.903
$5039,88
$92.06
$184.13
$276.18
$368.25
5460.31
$552,38
$99.14
$198.29
$297.43
$396.58
$495,72
$594.86
$106,23
$212.45
$318.68
$424.90
$531.13
$637 -35
Exhibit 2
Commerical Premises
Effective July 1 201
Container Size
(Cubic Yards)
1
1.5
2
3
4
5
6
7
Container Size
(Cubic Yards)
1
1.5
2
3
4
5
6
7
Special Pickups, Same -Day Service,
or Non Collection Day Services
Container Size
(Cubic Yards)
1
1.5
2
3
4
5
6
7
Cart Size
(G211ons)
20
32
64
96
Service level changes in excess of once in a twelve month Period $15.75
Effective July 1, 20310
Commercial Bin
1
$117.21
$175.82
$234.42
$351.63
$468.84
$586.015
$703.26
$820.47
Commercial Bin
1
$234,42
$351,63
$468.84
$703.20
$937.68
$1 ,172.1 1
$1,406.53
$11,640.95
2
$236.77
$355.15
$473.53
$710.30
$947'.86
$1,183.83
$1,4420.59
$1 ,657.36
2
$473.53
$710.30
$947.06
$1,420.59
$1,894
2 ,3 6 7 .65
.65
$2,841.18
$3,314.71
3
$358,66
$538.00
$717.3
$1 ,075.99
$1,434.66
$1,793.32
$2
$2,510,65
3
$717.33
$1,07'5,99
$1,434.66
$2, 151,99
$2,869.3
$3,586,64
$4,303.97
$5,021.30
Additional
Services
4
$482.91
$724.36
$965.81
$1,448.72
$1,931,63
$2,414.54
7,44
$3,3
5 6
$609.49 $738.43
$914.24 $1,107,64
,218.39 $1,476.85
$1,828.48 $2,215.28
$2,437.98 $2,953,71
$3,047.47 $3,092,13
$3,656°9 I $4,4 y8
$4,2 66,46 $5,16i 98
5 6
$1,218,99 $1,476.85
$1,828.48 $2,215.28
$2,437.98 $2,953.71
$3,656.97 $4,430.56
$5,907.41
6,094,95 $7,384.26
$7,313.94 $8,86'1.12
$8,532.33 $10,337,97
Maximum Rate Per
Collection
$57.92.
$86.89
$115.85
$173.77
$231.70
$289.62
$,347.54
$4015.47
Commercial Cart
1
$9.030
5201.28
$41,00
$61.49
Service Type
Locks, Keys, hasps
Stearn Cleaning
Per Cleaning
4
$965.81
$1,448.72
$1,931.63
$2,897.46
$3,
$4,829.07
$5,794.
$6,760.70
Rate
$25,030
$88.44
2
3
4
5
6
$17,99
$26.99
$35.98
$44.98
$53.97
$40.56
$60.84
$81.12
$101,40
$121,68
$81.99
$122.39
$163.99
$204.99
$245,98
5122.99
$184.48
$245,98
$307.47
$368,97
Effective juIN t, 20110
Effective July 1, 2010
3
Monthly Push /Pull Charges for Bin /Cart Service
5
Includes bringing container from its location on your property to the
$35.41
and returning the container to your property when empty,
$70.82
Linear Feet
Weekly Collection
fRange3
1
1 20'
$17.79
21 401'
$35.41
41 60'
$53.11
61 -80
$70.82
81 1030'
$88.52
101 120`
$105.23
121 140'
$123.93
141 160'
$141.63
161 180'
$159.34
181 2001'
$177.04
201 2203`
$194.75
221 240`
$212.45
241 2603'
$230.16
261 2801`
$247.86
281 _3030'
$265,56
Monthly Push /Pull Charges for Bin /Cart Service
$708.17
Includes bringing the container to the curb for servicing. Container will
$283.27
Linear Feet
Weekly Collection
(Range)
1
1 207`
$10.62
21 403'
$21.25
41 60'
$31,86
61 80'
$42.50
81 007'
$53.11
101 120'
$63.73
121 140'
$7426
141 160'
$84.98
161 180`
$95.61
181 200'
$106.23
201 220'
$116,84
221 240'
$127.47
241 260'
$138.09
261 280'
$148.72
281 -3010`
$159,34
Monthly Push /Pull Charges for Bin /Cart Service
3
Includes returning the container from the curb to the property after
5
Linear Feet
Weekly Collection
(Range
1
1 203'
$7.09
21 40'
$14.16
41 607'
$21,25
61 80'
$28.32
81 100'
$35
101 120'
$42,50
121 140`
$49,57
141 160'
$56,66
161 180'
$63.707
181 200'
570.82
201 220'
$77,90
221 240'
$84.98
241 260'
$92.06
261 280'
$99.14
281 -3007`
$106.23
No v :L LPf� c jd_7 ages for recyc labj oagan c rl mi er als 1tai der$.
2
3
4
5
6
$35.41
$53.11
$70.82
$88.52
$1036.23
$7€3.82
$106.23
$141,63
$177.04
$212.45
$106.23
$159.34
$212.45
$265.56
$318.68
$141,63
$212.45
$283.27
$354.08
$424,901
$177.04
$255°56
$354.08
$442.61
$449.35
$212.45.
$318.68
$424.90
$531.13
$637.35
$247.86
$371.79
$495.72
$619.65
$743,58
$283.27
$424.90
$566.54
$708.17
$849.80
$283.27
$478.01
$637.35
$796.69
$956.03
$354.08
$531.13
$798.17
$885.21
$1,06225
$389.49
$584.24
$778.99
$973.73
$1,168,48
$424.90
$637.35
$849.80
$1,0352.25
$1,274.71
$460.31
$690.47
$920.012
$1,150.78
$1,3803.93
$495.72
$743.58
$991.44
$1,239.30
$1,487.16
$531.13
$796,69
$1,062.25
$1,327.82
$1,593.38
2
3
4
5
6
$21.25
$31.86
$42.507
$53.11
$53.73
$42.501
$63.70
$84.98
$105.23
$127,47
$63.73
$95.61
$127.47
$159.34
$191,203
$84.98
$127.47
$169.96
$212.34
$254.95
$1036.23
$159.34
$212.45
$265.55
$318,68
$127.47
$191.20
$254.95
$318.68
$382.41
$148.72
$223.07
$297.43
$371.79
$446.15
$169.95
$254.95
$339.92
$424.903
$509.88
$191.20
$286.81
$382.41
$478,01
.$573,62
$212.45
$318.68
$424.90
$531.13
$637,35
$233.70
$350.54
$467.40
$584.24
$7031,018
$254.95
$382.41
$509.88
$637,35
$764.83
$276.18
$414,28
$552.38
$6903,47
$828,561
$297.56
$446.15
$594.86
$743,58
$892.303
$318.59
$478.01
$637.35
$796,69
$956,03
2
3
4
5
6
$14.16
$21.25
$28.32
$35.41
$4250
$28.32
$42.503
$56.66
$70,82
$84.98
$42.50
$63.73
$84698
$106.23
$127.47
$56.66
$84.98
$113.31
$141.63
$169.96
$70.82
$10361.23
$141.63
$177.04
$212.45
$84.98
$127.47
$169.96
$212,45
$254.95
$99.14
$148.72
$198.29
$247.86
$297.43
$113.31
$169.96
$226.61
$283.27
$339.92
$127.47
$191.20
$254,95
$318.68
$382.38
$141.63
$212.45
$283.27
$354,08
$424.90
$155.79
$233.703
$311.59
$389.49
$467.40
$169.96
$254.95
$339.92
$424.90
$509.88
$184.13
$276,1
$368.25
$460,31
$552.38
$198.29
$297.43
$396.58
$495.72
$594.86
$212.45
$318.68
$424.90
$531.13
$637.35
22
EITeetive JuIN I, 2010
Effective july 1, 2010
Debris Box Quarterly Rates
Material Type
Lease
Compacted
Dirt
'C&D debris Box Rates
Concrete (No Rehar)
Mood
Yardwaste
Minced Recyciabfes
Delivery Charge Initial placernen; of box onsite 599.31
Flasher Charge Per pull for boxed placed in street =X19 75
Relocation Charge To relocate boxes on site 5156.60
Demiurrafle Charge For on -call boxes if not serviced in 7 days $31.71
Loads Deemed Contaminated shall be charged at the Loose ga. rate
Per ton fees and rates are subject to change.
Container Size
Per Pull
548.67
Overweight Charges
Debris Box Size
Charge
Tans Allowed
Per Ton
2
3
4
Applied to tons in excess of tons
6
1
77
allowed in previous column.
10
$471.96
2
$82.10
15
5706.59
3
$82.10
20
$942.11
4
$82.10
30
$1,413.18
6
$82.10
40
$1,884.23
8
$82.10
0
$2,355.29
10
$82.10
19
$594.96
3
$82.10
15
$757.44
4
$82.10
20
$1,999.92
6
$82.10
39
$1,514°88
9
$82.10
40
$2,119.84
11
$82,10
50
$2,524.80
14
$82.10
10
$699.01
7
$91.23
10
$245.33
NIA
$68.15
15
5245,33
NIA
$68.15
20
$245.33
NIA
$68.15
30
$325.74
NIA
$68.15
40
5477.02
NIA
$68.15
10
$699.01
6
$91.23
10
5376.85
3
$19.55
15
S565.27
4
$19.55
20
5753.69
6
$19.55
30
$1,139,54
9
$19.55
40
$1,507.38
12
$19.55
50
$1,884.23
14
$19,55
10
5376.85
2
539.75
15
$565.27
3
$3935
20
5753.69
4
$39.75
30
$1,130.54
6
$39.75
40
$1,507.38
8
$39.75
50
$1,884.23
10
$39.75
10
5376.85
NIA
NIA
15
5565.27
NBA
N/A
20
$753.69
NIA
NIA
30
$1,130.54
N/A
N/A
40
$1,507.38
N/A
NIA
50
$1,884.23
NIA
NIA
Container Size
mixed Recycling Bin Service
548.67
564.90 $81.12 $97.34
$98.39
$131.19 $153.99 5196.78
tCuUc tai :r5,
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
77
189.42
$386.33
$487.60
$590.74
1.6
x $93
14` 65
$2 1
$430.39
$579.48
$731.39
$88611
2
$18 r .54
$378.82
$573.87
$772,65
$942A8 $.42.48
$1,181.48
3
5281.31
$558.24
$860,79
�1 158.98
$1.462.79
$1,772.22
4
$375-
5757.64
51,147.71
$1,545.30
$1.950.38
$2.362.96
5
$468.84
$947.06
$1,434.6-0
$1,931.63
$2,437.98
$2,95371
C
$562.6
$1,136.4
$1,721.59
$2.317.96
$2
$3,544.45
7
S }656.38
51,325.88
$2,0O8.52
$2,704.28
$3,413.17
$4,135,19
Cart Size Mixed Recycling Cart Service
'Gall w 1 2
32 516.22 532.45
64 $3?. 7 9 5 6r
o6 SA 19
er'' ;ce le v e1 c ha g s in e Yce ss o11 oI nce 1 n a t'.,' 3 C r Ilo in i Pe nod 1 7,
.3
3
4 5 6
548.67
564.90 $81.12 $97.34
$98.39
$131.19 $153.99 5196.78
5118.00
5196 -78 524 98 .$295.18
Exhibit 2
PER S, medicare, workers comp, unemployment
I Wor Expenses/Contracts
FY 10/11
J A -Plus (Tree Removals)
74,000
75,480
Rubicon (Tree Planting)
16,640
36,973
A-Plus (Young Tree Pruning)
53,560
54,631
Trees
A-Plus (Tree Pruning)
234,398
239,086
Rubicon (Staling, Raising, etc.)
16,640
16,973
Note ABL
Boething Treeland'
7,000
7,000
SBCA Tree Consulting
5,000
5,000
ITru Green Landcare
69,928
71,327
Bee control
1,000
1,000
478,156
507,470
AM Budget
480,000
508,000
Median Maintenance
Enviroscapes
176,714
180,248
Materials
10,000
10,000
Community of HBl HQA
32,000
32,000
Share of Zone 5 off site maint
31,000
30,000
249,714
252,248
Total AM FY 10/11 763,400
AM Budget
250,000
255,000
FY'fOI1'P0J 101 11 BUDI"PT 6-3-1'
Uj
LU
CC
r
0
�.3
V)
rr� aC
N
z
LU W
CD
CL
Q
U
LL
0
V1
Uj
d
CC
Ln
0
r
J
J
v
J,
91
1
0
G% 5
c�
0
C
cu
us
c
CD
a
cx
City council
Exhibit 3 to
Public Hearing
Agenda Item #6
06- 15 -'1®
ca c c c a c a a c a
Ln o f a L i co u
U1 Ln d M r a ref N r--i r-{
C!� tA- C!7 ilr ^Ln {F7 if? Vlk 'V? t!}
LU
D
LA
LLJ
_U
LU
Ln
z
z
0
LM L�
Z
W
z
U
CL
U
V)
W
Cr.
z
0
Q
Ln
�i
4 �7
a
7 ar
r�.
f�
v
a�
a�
s
c
H
t-I
N
9f b-
m
LM
4l
+r
m
r 0 CD C)
Q o C:) o Q 0 a o 0
i I7 C3 tI] Q ti7 C7 N D LT3 C; U1 th
tf7 L17
ifs iJ}
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
ESTABLISHING INTEGRATED WASTE COLLECTION CEILING RATES
AND SERVICE FEES FOR ALAMEDA COUNTY INDUSTRIES, INC.,
FOR RATE PERIOD 9 (JULY 2010 TO JUNE 2011)
WHEREAS, in 2002 the Cit y of Alameda entered into a Franchise
Agreement with Alameda County Industries (Contractor), for solid
waste, recyclable materials and organics materials curbside collection for a ten
z year period; and
WHEREAS, in 2009 the City of Alameda extended the same Agreement
with Contractor for solid waste recyclable materials and organics Y g cs rnaterials
curbside collection until 2022; and
WHEREAS, on December 30, 2009, Contractor submitted a rate
application covering rate period 9 projections; and
WHEREAS, City of Alameda staff and their consultant, Hilton, Farnkopf
Hobson (HFH), evaluated the request for rate increase applications in
accordance with the existing Ag reement with Contractor; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the solid waste, recyclable
materials and organic materials collection will be consolidated into one
integrated waste management fee; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the integrated waste management
rates approved by this resolution provide Contractor with a reasonable rate of
return; and
WH EREAS, Ordinance No. 2476, passed by the City Council on
February 20, 1990, states that all subsequent rates for collection, processing
and delivery to the City specified disposal site of integrated solid waste shall be
set by Resolution of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2629, passed by the City Council on May 4,
1 993, states that all subsequent changes to the method of collection surcharges
shall be set by Resolution of the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City
of Alameda establishes the integrated waste collection ceiling rates and
services fees for Contractor for Rate Period 9 (July 2010 to June 30, 2011) as
shown on Exhibit 2.
Resolution #5 -D
05 -15 -14
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly
and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a
regular meeting assembled on the 15 1h day of June, 2010, by the following vote
to grit:
A'C'ES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official
seal of said City this 16 th day of June, 2010.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITE'' OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Ann Marie Gallant
Interim City Manager
Date: June 15, 2010
Re: Hold a Public Hearing and Adopt the 1) Resolution of Intention to Levy
Reassessments and to Issue Refunding Bonds Upon the security Thereof
Relating to the City of Alameda Marina Tillage Assessment District 89-1;
the 2} Reassessment Report for the City of Alameda Farina village
Reassessment District No. 10 -1, Confirming and ordering The
Reassessments and Directing Actions with Respect Thereto; and the 3)
Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of Two series of Refunding Bonds,
Providing for the Execution of Fiscal Agent Agreements .and other Matters
with Respect Thereto, and .Making Findings with Respect to and Approving
the Issuance of Bonds by the Alameda Public Financing Authority
�W M :1ce] 0911161, 1
H arbor Bay. Community Facilities District No. 1 (Harbor Bay) "CFD 1 comprises 530
single family residential parcels on approximately 123 acres of land. CFD 1 is located
in the mixed -use community of Harbor Bay Isle in the southern portion of the City of
Alameda (the "City CFD is bounded by Shoreline Park and San Francisco Bay on
the crest and north; Island Drive and the Chuck Corica Golf Complex on the east; and
Harbor Bay Business Park on the south.
I n 1939, the City issued CFD 1 special Tax Bonds to finance the acquisition and
construction of various public capital improvements, including grading, street
improvements, landscaping and storm drainage improvements in CFD 1. In 1996 the
City issued special tax refunding bonds (the 1995 Refunding Bonds in order to refund
the 1989 CFD 1 special Tax Bonds.
On June 12, 1995 the Alameda Public Financing Authority (the "APFA issued
$1 7,035,000 in Local Agency Community Facilities District Revenue Bonds (the "1 995
CFD Bonds The proceeds were used by the APFA to provide funds to acquire from
the City its 1 990 Refunding Bonds. The 1995 CFD Bonds are payable solely from
special taxes collected from CFD 1 property owners.
City Council
Public Fearing
Agenda Item #6 -E
06 -10
Honorable Mayor and June 15, 2010
Members of the City Council Page 2 of 4
Marina Village: Assessment District 59 -1 (Marina pillage) "AD 89.1 comprises 71
commercial and industrial parcels in a 200 -acre master- planned community located in
the northern portion of the City, south of the Oakland Inner Harbor and east of the
Posey and Webster Street tunnels. Marina Village Parkway winds through AD 89 -1,
which includes the Marina Village shopping Center.
In 1997, the City issued assessment district revenue bonds (the "1997 AD Bonds to
finance the acquisition and construction of various public infrastructure supporting the
development of AD 89 -1. On January 15, 1999 the City issued $37,685,000 in
Assessment District Revenue Bonds (the 1999 AD Bonds The proceeds were used
to refinance the 1997 AD Bonds. The 1999 AD Bonds are payable solely from
assessment levies collected from the owners of property within AD. 89 -1. The
assessment levies are partially offset by annual tax increment credits from the City of
Alameda Community Improvement Commission (the "CIC as outlined in the 1954
Marina Village owner Participation and Cooperation Agreement.
$12,325,000 of the 1996 CFD Bonds and $714,075,000 of the 1999 AD Bonds remain
outstanding (collectively, the "Local obligations The City's staff "staff') and its
financing advisors have determined that due to favorable interest rates in today's bond
market, it is in the best interest of the property owners in both the CFD 1 and the AD
89 -1 to refund the Local obligations.
DISCUSSION
Staff recommends that refunding revenue bonds (the "Refunding Bonds be issued
through the APFA in an amount not to exceed to refund the 1996 CFD and
the 1999 AD Bonds. The Refunding Bonds will. be limited obligations of the City
payable solely from special taxes collected from. the. CFD 1 property owners and
assessment levies from the AD. 89 -1 property owners. It is anticipated that the
Refunding Bonds will be structured in two series, CFD.. Igo. 1 Series .2010 (the "CFD
Refunding Bonds and AD 10 -1 Series 2010 (the "AD Refunding Bonds The CFD
Refunding Bonds will be issued in an amount not to exceed $11.5 million, and the AD
Refunding Bonds will be issued in an amount not to exceed $9.5 million.
The CFD Refunding Bonds will be structured to provide level annual savings expected
to range from approximately $400 to $700 per special taxpayer. The final maturity on
the CFD Refunding Bonds will be August 1, 2019, which is the same as the final
maturity of the 1996 CFD Bonds.
The AD Refunding Bonds will also be structured to provide level annual savings totaling
approximately $863,000 per year. It is anticipated that the largest taxpayer, Legacy
Partners I Alameda LLC, will receive the majority of the savings. The final maturity on
the AD Refunding Bonds will be September 2, 2014, which is the same as the 1999 AD
Bonds.
Honorable Mayor and June 15, 2010
Members of the City Council Page 3 of 4
The APFA will issue Refunding Revenue Bonds to acquire the AD Refunding bonds and
the CFD Refunding Bonds, which will be issued as fixed rate, uninsured, tax exempt
bonds with an anticipated Fitch rating of "BBB" and an anticipated Standard Poor's
rating of "BBB It is anticipated that the APFA Refunding Revenue Bonds will be
issued by means of a competitive sale method. However, staff maintains the option to
use another method of sale if in the judgment of the City's financial advisors, another
method of sale may produce more positive results. The City's financial advisors will
assist staff is assessing the California revenue bond market at the time of sale to
determine the appropriateness of the interest rates and other terms of offers received.
The target date for the sale of the Bonds is June 23, 2010.
Staff has been working with Sequoia Financial Croup LLC and Westhoff, Cone
Holmstedt as the financial advisors and Quint &Thimmig as bond and disclosure
counsel during the structuring of the APFA Refunding Revenue Bonds. As previously
stated, staff is planning to leave underwriting options open at this point in time, with the
expectation that a competitive method of sale may work best for this transaction. Staff,
with assistance from the financial advisors, will pursue the method of sale that yields the
lowest cost of borrowing. Other methods under consideration include a limited
negotiated sale or a private placement.
The target date for bond closing is July 15, 2010. This .should allow the City sufficient
time to secure the reduced special tax payments and assessment levies on the August
2nd tax rolls in order to provide tax reductions to property owners in FY10 -11.
The documents needed to implement the refinancing program that. are referenced in the
Resolutions are on file in the City Clerk's office and include: a Reassessment Report for
the AD Refunding Bonds; a Fiscal Agent Agreement for the CFD Refunding Bonds; a
Fiscal Agent Agreement for the AD Refunding Bonds; an Agreement Regarding
Refunding of Authority Bonds which contains the Community Improvement
Commission's obligation to assist with the refinancing; an Escrow Deposit and Trust
Agreement relating to the repayment of the 1990 Refunding Bonds; an Escrow Deposit
and Trust Agreement relating to the repayment of the 1999 AD. Bonds; and a Notice of
Intention to Sell Bonds, an official Notice of Sale, and a Preliminary Official Statement
relating to the sale of the APFA Refunding Revenue Bonds.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Issuance of the APFA Refunding Revenue Bonds would provide substantial savings to
the property owners in CFD 1 and AD 89 -1. Depending upon lot size, homeowners can
expect annual property tax savings between $400 -$700. Total annual tax savings for
business owners in the Marina village Assessment District will be approximately
$803,000 per year. The City will be reimbursed from bond proceeds for its
administrative costs incurred during the structuring and issuance of the Bonds. A
sources and use of funds (Exhibit 1) and estimated refunding savings (Exhibit 2) provide
a summary of the pertinent financial detail on this transaction.
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the city council
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the city council take the following actions:
June 15, 2010
Page 4 of 4
1. Hold a public hearing regarding the issuance of the APFA Refunding Revenue
Bonds.
2. Adopt the Resolution of Intention to Levy Reassessments and to Issue Refunding
Bonds Upon the security Thereof Relating to the city of Alameda Marina village
Assessment District 39-1.
3. Adopt the Reassessment Report for the city of Alameda Marina village
Reassessment District No. 10 -1, confirming and ordering The Reassessments and
Directing Actions with Respect Thereto
4. Adopt the Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of Two series of Refunding Bonds,
Providing for the Execution of Fiscal Agent Agreements and Other Matters with
Respect Thereto, and Making Findings with Respect to and Approving the Issuance
of Bonds by the Alameda Public Financing Authority.
Respectfully submitted,
Ann Mar' Gallant
Interim y Manager
Exhibits:
1. Sources and Uses of Funds
2. Estimated savings
3. owner Participation Agreement By and Between community Improvement
Commission of the City of Alameda and Alameda Marina Village Associates and
Alameda Marina Center Associates, together with Amendment No. 1 to Owner
Participation Agreement and Amendment No. 2 to Owner Participation Agreement
(on file with the city Clerk's Office)
6/8/2010
Alameda PFA CFD No. 1
2010 Refunding Series 2010
AD 89--1
rN -%^d^
Sources
Par Amount
Prior Reserve Fund 1)
Prior Bond Fund CIC Surplus (2)
AD 89 -1 Improvement Fund
Par Amount of PFA Bonds
Original Issue Premium (Discount)
Total Sources of Funds
$1 0,780,000.00
1,772,010.80
$538,687.37 1
$19,780,000.00
$9.00000.00
3,569 7
3,691,643.65
2,7251
Uses
Deposit to Escrow
$12,752,535.00 (3)
$14,243,902.50 (4)
Deposit to 2010 Reserve Fund (5)
1,078
1,987,010.03
Deposit to Bond Fund (6)
49,732.85
30
New AD 89 -1 Improvement Fund
2,725,3 87.32
Purchase Local Obligations:
CFD No. 1
$1.0,780,000.00
AD 89 -1
9.000,000.00
Subtotal Local Obligations
$19,780,000.00
Deposit to Cost of Issuance Fund
439,787.37
.Allowance for Underwriter's Discount (7)
98,900.00
Total Uses of Funds
$20,318,687.37
$131001
$18
Costs of Issuance .Retail
Total
CFD No. I
AD 89 -1
City's Issuance Fee
$7500.00
$40,874.62
$34,12538
Bond /Disclosure Counsel Q T
100.000.00
54
45,500.51
Financial Advisor Sequoia WCH
196,050.00
106,846.26
89,203.74
Reassessment Engineering NBS
19,500.00
0.00
1.9,500.00
Printing O. S.
900.00
4,904.95
4,095.05
Trustee
2.500.00
1,362.49
1,1 37.51
Trustee's Counsel
2,500.00
1,362.49
1,137.51
Escrow Agent
2,500.00
1,362.49
1,137.51
CU SIP
400.00
218.00
182.00
Debt Statement
900.00
490.50
409.50
Rating Fee S&P
16,000.00
8,719.92
7,280.08
Rating Fee Fitch
1.5
8,174.92
6
Contingency
437.37
437.37
0.00
Total Costs of Issuance
$4 39.787.37
$229
$210
(1) Balance as of 5112/10. Source: City of Alameda.
(2) Projected balance as of 6122110. Source: City of Alameda.
From CFD 1: $283,153.50 From AD 89 -1: $255.533.87
(3) Escrow pays debt service due 811!10 on Authority's 1996 Series A Bonds.
Assumes cash- funded escrow.
(4) Escrow pays debt service due 912110 on Authority's 1999 Bonds.
Assumes cash funded escrow.
(5) For CFD No. 1, the Reserve Requirement equals 10% of the principal amount of the Local Obligation.
(6) Amount at least sufficient to pay debt service on the PFA Bonds due 912110.
(7) Equals 0.5% of the Bond amount.
City Council
Prepared by Westhoff, Cone Holmstedt 1 Exhibit I to
Public Hearing
Agenda item #6 -E
06 -15 -10
6/5/2010
i w. r� I E
Cit of Al am e da
is
(CF No.' r 89-1
an
CFD No. I
Estimated
Annual
2010 -11 Levy
Savings
$1 ,900 $2,500
$418
$2,501 $3,004
$53
$3 $3
$645
$3,50 1 $4,104
$763
Average Savings
$618
AD 89
Estimated
Annual
Owner
Savings
Legacy Partners 1 Alameda LLC
$516,248
SRM Marina Investors LLC
109,696
Legacy Partners I Alameda 11 LLC
46,907
Victoria Marina LLC
32,351
Albertsons
30,597
Oakland Yacht Club
19
Long's Drugs (Joseph Moore Trust)
19,456
Wind River Systems Inc.
13,494
Pacific Marina Hospitality Inc.
12
Siska, Robert J.
1103
Subtotal Top Ten $513,094
Other Property Owners $50,124
TOTAL $863,218
City Council
Prepared by Westhoff, Cone Holmstedt
2 Exhibit 2 to
Public Hearing
Agenda Item ##6 -IE
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
INTENTION TO LEVY REASSESSMENTS AND TO ISSUE REFUNDING
BONDS UPON THE SECURITY THEREOF RELATING TO THE CITY OF
ALAMEDA MARINA VILLAGE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 89 -1
0
a
WHEREAS, this City Council has heretofore conducted special
`Y assessment roc in
p eed gs pursuant to Resolution of Intention No. 11822,
adopted on September 0, 1989, and in said proceedings this City Council
g y
confirmed unpaid assessments upon the parcels in the City of Alameda Farina
Village Assessment District 89 -1 (the "Assessment District" 9 and special
ecial p
assessment bonds, entitled "Limited obligation Improvement. Bonds, City of
Alameda, Marina Village Assessment District 89 -1, Series 89 -1," in the initial
aggregate principal amount of $30,108,180 (the "Prior Bonds were issued and
delivered, and the outstanding Prior Bonds are secured by the. unpaid
assessments; and
WHEREAS, in order to reduce the future assessment levies on the
parcels of property in the Assessment District the public interest requires the
refunding of the Prior Bonds and this City Council intends to. accompl sh said
refunding through the levy of reassessments and the issuance of refunding
bonds upon the security thereof.
NOVA, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ALAMEDA as follows:
Section 1. Proceedings for the levy and collection of reassessments as
security for the issuance and payment of refunding bonds shall. be conducted
for the Assessment District pursuant to the Refunding Act of 1984 for 191
Improvement Act Bonds, Division 11.5 (commencing with Section 9500 of the
California Streets and Highways Code (the "Act
Section 2. The contemplated reassessment and refunding, in the
opinion of this City Council, is of more than local or ordinary public benefit, and
the costs and expenses thereof are made chargeable upon the.City of Alameda
Farina Village Reassessment District No. 10 -1 (the "Reassessment District
the exterior boundaries of which are shown on a map thereof heretofore filed .in
the office of the City Clerk, to which reap reference is hereby made for further
particulars. The reap indicates by a boundary line the extent of the territory
included in the Reassessment District and shall govern for all details as to the
extent thereof.
Section 3. The reassessment and refunding is hereby referred to N BS
Government Finance Group, a qualified firm employed by the City for the
purpose of the reassessment proceedings, and said firm is hereby directed to
make and file with the City Clerk a report for the Reassessment District in
writing, presenting the following:
Resolution #5 -E (1)
05 -15 -10
(a) A schedule setting forth the unpaid principal and
interest on the Prior Bonds and the total amounts thereof.
(b) The total estimated principal amount of the
reassessment and of the refunding bonds and the maximum interest rate
thereon, together with an estimate of cost of the reassessment and of
issuing the refunding bonds, including all costs of issuing the refunding
bonds, as contemplated by subdivision (a) of Section 9600 of the Act.
(c) The auditor's record kept pursuant to Section 8682 of
the California Streets and Highways Code showing the schedule of
principal installments and interest on all unpaid original assessments
and the total amounts thereof.
(d) For the Reassessment District, the estimated amount
of each reassessment, identified by reassessment number
corresponding to the reassessment number on the. reassessment
diagram, together with a proposed auditor's record for the .reassessment
prepared in the manner described in said Section 8082.
(e) A reassessment diagram showing the Reassessment
District and the boundaries and dimensions of the subdivisions of land
within the Reassessment District. Each subdivision, including each
separate condominium interest as defined in Section 783 of the Civil
Code, shall be given a separate number upon the diagrams.
When any portion or percentage of the costs and expenses of the
refunding and reassessment is to be paid from sources other.. than
reassessments, the amount of such portion or percentage shall first be
deducted from the total estimated cost and expenses of the refundin g and
reassessment, and the reassessments shah include only the remainder of the
estimated cost and expenses.
Section 4. If any excess shall be realized from the reassessments it
shall be used in such amounts as this city council may determine, in
accordance with the provisions of applicable law, and in a manner to be
provided in these reassessment proceedings.
Section 5. Notice is hereby given that serial and/or terra bonds to
represent reassessments for the Reassessment District, and to bear interest at
the rate of not to exceed twelve percent (12 per annum, will be issued in the
manner provided by the Act, the last installment of which bonds shall mature on
September Z, 2014.
Section 6. The provisions of Part 11.1 of Division 10 of the Streets and
Highways code, providing for an alternative procedure for the advance
_2_
payment of assessments and the calling of bonds, shall apply to the refunding
bonds to be issued pursuant to the reassessment proceedings.
Section 7. It is the intention of this Council to create a special reserve
fund pursuant to and as authorized by Part 10 of Division 10 of the California
Streets and Highways Code with respect to the refunding bonds,
Section 8. This Resolution shall take effect upon its adoption by this City
Council.
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly
and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the city of Alameda in a
regular meeting assembled on the 15th day of June, 2010, by the following vote
to wit:
AYES
NOBS:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the
seal of said city this 10th day of June, 2010.
Lara vlleisiger, City clerk
City of Alameda
-3-
i
F y�
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
ADOPTING REASSESSMENT REPORT FOR THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
MARINA VILLAGE REASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 10 -1
CONFIRMING AND ORDERING THE REASSESSMENTS AND
DIRECTING ACTIONS WITH RESPECT THERETO
WHEREAS, this City Council has adopted a Resolution of Intention to
Levy Reassessments and to Issue Refunding Bonds Upon the Security Thereof
Relating to the city of Alameda Marina pillage Assessment Qistrict .89 (the
"Resolution of Intention wherein this city council directed the making and
filing of a reassessment report (the "Report in accordance with and pursuant
to the Refunding Act of 1984 for 1915 I mprovement Act Bonds, Division 11,5 of
the Californ Streets and Highways Code (the "Act and
WHEREAS, this city council has determined that in order to reduce
future assessment levies on property in the city of Alameda.. Marina pillage
Assessment District 89--1 (the "Assessment District it is desirable .and that .the
public interest requires the refunding of the outstanding Limited Ob ligation
Improvement Bonds, city of Alameda Marina pillage Assessment District. 89-11
Series 89 1 (the "Prior Bonds') issued for the Assessment District and the levy
of reassessments as security for refunding improvement bonds the proceeds of
which will be used to refund the Prior Bonds; and
WHEREAS, the Report was duly made and filed, and duly considered .by
this city council and found to be sufficient in every particular, and. the Report
shall stand for all subsequent proceedings pertaining to the city of Alarneda
Farina pillage Reassessment District No. 10 -1 identified therein the
"Reassessment District under and pursuant to the Resolution of Intention; and
WHEREAS, the city desires to issue refunding bonds (the "Refunding
Bonds for the Reassessment District pursuant to the Act, the proceeds of
which Refunding Bonds will be used to refund the outstanding Prior Bonds.
NOME, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ALAMEDA as follows:
Section 1. Pursuant to Section 9525 of the Act and based upon the
Report, this city council finds that all of the following conditions are satisfied.
(a) each estimated annual installment of principal and
interest on the reassessment, as set forth in the Report, is less than the
corresponding annual installment of principal and interest on the portion
of the original assessment being superseded and supplanted as also set
forth in the Report, by the same percentage for all subdivisions of land
with the Reassessment District;
Resolution #5 -E (2)
a5 -15 -10
(b) the number of years to maturity of the Refunding Bonds
proposed to be issued under the Resolution of Intention for the
Reassessment District is not more than the number of years to the last
maturity of the Prior Bonds; and
(c) the principal amount of the reassessment on each
subdivision of land within the Reassessment District is less than the
unpaid principal amount of the portion of the original assessment being
superseded and supplanted by the same percentage for each
subdivision of land in the Reassessment District.
Section 2. The public interest, convenience and necessity require that
the reassessment for the Reassessment District be made.
Section 3. The Reassessment District benefited by the reassessment on
the land therein and to be reassessed to pay the costs and expenses thereof,
and the exterior boundaries thereof, are as shown by the. reassessment
diagram on file in the office of the city clerk, which diagram is made a part of
this Resolution by this reference thereto.
Section 4. Pursuant to the findings above with respect to. section 9525
of the Act, the conditions set forth therein for the reassessment are deemed
satisfied and the following elements of the Report are hereby finally approved
and confirmed without further proceedings, including without the. conduct of a
public hearing under the Act, to wit:
(a) a schedule setting forth the unpaid principal and
interest on the Prior Bonds and the total amounts thereof;
(b) an estimate of the principal amount of the
reassessment and of the issue of the Refunding Bands. and the
maximum interest rate thereon, together with an estimate. of cost of the
applicable reassessment and of issuing the Refunding Bends, including
expenses incidental thereto;
(c) the auditor's record kept pursuant to Section 8682 of
the California Streets and Highways Code showing the respective
schedule of principal installments and interest on all unpaid original
assessments and the total amounts thereof;
(d) the estimated amount of each reassessment, identified
by reassessment number corresponding to the reassessment number of
the reassessment diagram, together with a proposed auditor's record for
the reassessment prepared in the manner described in said section
8682; and
(e) a reassessment diagram showing the Reassessment
District and the boundaries and dimensions of the subdivisions of land
therein, assigning a separate number to each such subdivision of land.
Final adoption and approval of the Report as a whole, including the
estimate of the costs and expenses, the reassessment diagram and the
reassessment, as contained in the Report, as hereinabove determined and
ordered, is intended to and shall refer and apply to the Report, or any portion
thereof, as amended, modified, revised or corrected by, or pursuant to and in
accordance with, any resolution or order, if any, duly adopted or made by this
City Council, or by the City Manager as authorized pursuant to sections 6 and 9
below.
Section 5. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, including the
Report, offered and received by this City Council, this City Council expressly
finds and determines:
(a) that each of said several subdivisions of .land within the
Reassessment District will be specially benefited by the reassessment at
least in the amount, if not more than the amount, of the reassessment
apportioned against said subdivisions of land, respectively, and
(b) that there is substantial evidence to support, and the
weight of said evidence preponderates in favor of, the aforesaid finding
and determination as to special benefits.
Section 6. The reassessment for the Reassessment District, including
all costs and expenses thereof, is hereby approved, confirmed and levied.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Act, reference is hereby made to the
Resolution of Intention for further particulars. The reassessment for the
Reassessment District shall be reduced in the event that the City. Mana 9 er
determines that to do so is necessary and advisable to further. the pur poses of
this Resolution, and, if such determination is made, the City Manager is hereb y
y
authorized and directed to record said reduced reassessment in .the manner set
forth in section 9 hereof, and to take any further actions required to finalize said
reduction, without further action of this City Council.
Section 7. The City Clerk shall forthwith cause:
(a) the reassessment for the Reassessment District to be
delivered to the official of the City who acts as the superintendent of
Streets of the City, together with the reassessment diagram, as
approved and confirmed by this City Council, with a certificate of such
confirmation and of the date thereof, executed by the City Clerk,
attached thereto. The Superintendent of streets shall record the
reassessments and the reassessment diagram in a suitable book to be
kept for that purpose, and append thereto a certificate of the date of
-3-
such recording, and such recordation shall be and constitute the
reassessment roll for the Reassessment District;
(b) a copy of the reassessment diagram and a notice of
reassessment for the Reassessment District, in the form specified in
Section 3114 of the California streets and Highways Code and executed
by the city Clerk, to be filed and recorded, respectively, in the office of
the county Recorder of the county of Alameda; and
(c) a copy of this Resolution to be provided to the Auditor
of the County of Alameda.
From the date of recording of the notice of reassessment for the
Reassessment District, all persons shall be deemed to have notice of the
contents of such reassessment for the Reassessment District, and. each
reassessment shall thereupon be a lien upon the property against which it. is
made, and, unless sooner discharged, such liens shall so continue for. the
period of ten (10) years from the date of said recordation, or in the event bonds
are issued to represent the reassessments, until the expiration of four. (4) years
after the due date of the last installment upon the bonds or of the last
installment of principal of the bonds.
The appropriate officer or officers of the city are hereby authorized to
pay any and all fees required by law in connection with the above.
Section 8. The city Finance Director (or other appropriate city official)
shall keep the record showing the several installments of principal and interest
on the reassessments which are to .be collected each year during the. term of
the Refunding Bonds. An annual apportionment. of. each reassessment,
together with annual interest on said reassessment, shall be payable in.. the
sane manner and at the same time and in the same installments as the
general ad valorem property taxes and shall be payable and if not paid shall
become delinquent at the same time and in the.same pro
portienate amount.
Each year the annual installments shall be submitted to the County Auditor
controller for purposes of collection, and the county Auditor Control .ler shall, at
the close of the tax collecting period, promptly render to the city
Finance
Director (or other appropriate city official) a detailed report showing the
amount of such installments, interest, penalties and percentages so collectd.
Section 9. The city Manager is hereby authorized and directed (a).to
revise the Report to reduce the applicable reassessments, as. confirmed
pursuant to section 6 hereof, if and to the extent necessary so that the
aggregate amount thereof does not exceed the initial principal amount of the
Refunding Bonds, (b) to amend the applicable reassessment and
reassessment diagram to reflect such reductions, and (c) to promptly record the
applicable reassessment, together with the applicable reassessment diagram,
as so amended, in the office of the superintendent of streets of the city.
Immediately thereafter, a copy of the respective reassessment diagram, as so
-4-
amended, shall be filed in the office of the County Recorder and a Notice of
Reassessment, referring to said diagram, shall be recorded in the office of the
County Recorder, all pursuant to the provisions of Division 4.5 of the California
Streets and highways Code.
Section 10. This Resolution shall take effect upon its adoption by this
City council.
1, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly
and regularly adopted and passed by the council of the city of Alameda in a
regular meeting assembled on the 1 5th day of June, 2010, by the following vote
to wit:
AYES
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WH EREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the
seal of said City this 16th day of June, 2010.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF TWO SERIES OF REFUNDING BONDS,
PROVIDING FOR EXECUTION OF FISCAL AGENT AGREEMENTS AND
OTHER MATTERS WITI---I RESPECT THERETO, AND MAKING FINDINGS
WITH RESPECT TO AND APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS BY THE
ALAMEDA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY
a
a�
WHEREAS, this City Council has adopted a Resolution of Intention (the
Lj "Resolution of Intention relating to the levy and collection of reassessments as
security for the issuance and payment of a series of refunding bonds for the
City's Marina village Reassessment District No. 10 -1 (the "Reassessment
District and in the Resolution of Intention this Cit y council provided that serial
and /or term bonds would be issued pursuant to the provisions of the. Refunding
Act of 1984 for 1915 Act Improvement Bonds, Division 11.5 of the California
Streets and Highways Code (the "Refunding Act for the Reassessment
p
District, and reference to the Resolution of Intention is hereby ex pre made
for further particulars; and
WHEREAS, a list of all reassessments which remain unpaid in the
Reassessment District has been filed with the city Clerk; and
WHEREAS, this city Council duly considered the list of reassessments
and has determined that the same is an accurate statement of the unpaid
reassessments; and
WHEREAS, this City Council has conducted proceedings. under and
pursuant to the Mello Roos community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended (the
"CFD Act to form the City of Alameda Community Facilities District No. .1
(Harbor Bay) (the `CFD to authorize the levy of special takes upon the land
within the CFD, and to issue bonds secured by said special taxes the p roceeds
of which were used to finance certain facilities; and
WHEREAS, this city council, as legislative body of the CI=D, authorized
the issuance of bonds of the city for the CFD in the original principal amount of
$17,035,000 designated city of Alameda Community Facilities. District No. 1
(Harbor Bay) 1996 Special Tax Refunding Bonds (the "Prior CFD Bonds"), the
Prior CFD Bonds having been issued pursuant to the CFD Act and a Resolution
of this City Council adopted on June 4, 1990; and
WHEREAS, this City council has determined that due. to favorable
interest rates, it is in the best interests of the owners of land in the CFD that the
Prior CFD Bonds be refunded, and it is in the best interests of the owners of
land in the Reassessment District that bonds be issued secured b y the
reassessments to refund the outstanding Limited obligation Improvement
Bonds, City of Alameda Marina Village Assessment District 89 1, Series 89 1
(together with the Prior CFD Bonds, collectively the "Prior Bonds and
Resolution #6 -E (3)
06 -15 -14
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to this city council two separate
agreements (collectively, the "Fiscal Agent Agreements providing for the
issuance of two separate issues of refunding bonds of the city (collectively, the
"Bonds"), for and on behalf of the CFD and for the Reassessment District, and
this city council, with the aid of city staff, has reviewed the Fiscal g
A ent
Agreements and found them to be in proper order, and now desires .to approve
the Fiscal Agent Agreements and the issuance of the Bonds; and
WHEREAS, there has been presented to the City council two separate
escrow deposit and trust agreements (collectively, the "Escrow Agreements
providing for the creation of funds which will be used to refund and redeem the
Prior Bonds and this city council now desires to approve such agreements in
connection with the refunding of the Prior Bonds; and
WHEREAS, the city proposes to sell both issues of the Bonds to the
Alameda Public Financing Authority (the "Authority pursuant, among other
documents, to the terms of an Agreement Regarding Refunding of Authority
Bonds (the "Refunding Agreement by and among the city, th .Authorit y and
the other parities identified therein, and the Authority proposes to purchase the
Bonds with the proceeds of its bonds (the "Authority Bonds" and to offer the
Authority Bonds for sale by means of a preliminary. official statement the
"Preliminary official Statement and to sell the Authority Bonds by public sale
pursuant to a notice of intention to sell bonds (the "Notice of Intention and an
official notice of sale (the "official Notice of Sale and
WHEREAS, it appears that each of said documents referenced above is
in appropriate form and is an appropriate document to be executed and
delivered for the purpose intended; and
WHEREAS, the city has on this date held a duly noticed public hearing,
as required by Section 6586.5(a) of the California Government Code, on the
refinancing to occur by reason of the purchase of the Bonds with the proceeds
of the Authority Bonds; and
WHEREAS, this City Council now desires to make a finding of significant
public benefit, pursuant to Section 6586.5(a)(2) of the California Government
Code, and to approve of the transactions contemplated by the Bonds and the
Authority Bonds; and
WHEREAS, all conditions, things and acts required to exist, to have
happened and to have been performed precedent to and in the issuance of the
Bonds as contemplated by this Resolution and the documents referred to
herein exist, have happened and have been performed in due time, form and
manner as required by the laws of the State of California, including the CFD Act
and the Refunding Act, as applicable.
_2_
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ALAMEDA as follows:
Section 1. This City Council hereby finds that significant public benefits
will arise from the refunding of the Prior Bonds by means of the purchase of the
Bonds with the proceeds of the Authority Bonds, all in accordance. with Section
6586 of the California Government Code, in that the financing and refinancing
will result in demonstrable savings in effective interest rates, bond preparation,
bond underwriting and bond issuance costs as only one series of the Authority
Bonds will be sold to the public (as opposed to two series of bonds that would
otherwise need to be issued by the City) to refinance the Prior Bonds.
Section 2. The reassessments for Reassessment District now remaining
unpaid are. as shown on said List of Unpaid Reassessments for the
Reassessment District (the "Reassessments on file with the City clerk; and for
a particular description of the lots or parcels of land bearing the respective
reassessment numbers set forth in said list, reference is hereby made to the
reassessment and to the diagram, and any amendments thereto, recorded. in
the office of the Superintendent of Streets of the City for the Reassessment
District.
Section 3. Pursuant to the Refunding Act and this Resolution, refunding
bonds designated as "Limited obligation Refunding Bonds, City.of Alameda
Marina Village Reassessment District No. 10 -1" (the "Reassessment Bonds"
shall be issued in an aggregate principal amount equal .to the unpaid
Reassessments, but not in any event in a principal amount in excess of
$0,500,000. The Reassessment Bonds shall be issued at such rate or rates of
interest, in such form or forms, with such maturities and upon such rovisions
p
covenants and conditions, all of which shall be as specified by the City. pursuant
to the terms of the Fiscal Agent Agreement with respect to the Reassessment
Bonds to be executed by the City in furtherance of the issuance of the
Reassessment Bonds hereby authorized; provided, however, no such
Reassessment Bonds shall be authorized in excess of the total aggregate
amount of the unpaid Reassessments.
Pursuant to the CFD Act and this Resolution, special tax refunding
bonds of the city for the CFD designated as "city of Alameda Community
Facilities District No. 1 (Harbor Bay) 2010 Special Tax Refunding Bonds" (the
"CFD Bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $11,500,000, are
hereby authorized to be issued. The CFD Bonds shall be executed in the form
set forth in and otherwise as provided in the Fiscal Agent Agreement for the
CFD Bonds.
In furtherance of the issuance of the CFD Bonds, this Council hereby
makes the following findings and determinations: (i) it is prudent in the
management of the fiscal affairs of the City, this City Council and the CFD to
issue the CFD Bonds for the purpose of refunding the Prior CFD Bonds; (ii) the
total net interest cost to maturity on the CFD Bonds plus the principal amount of
_3_
the CFD Bonds will not exceed the total net interest cost to maturity on the Prior
CFD Bonds plus the principal amount of the Prior CFD Bonds; and (iii) the
value of the real property in the CFD subject to the special tax to pay debt
service on the CFD Bonds is at least three times the principal amount of the
CFD Bonds and the principal amount of all other bonds outstanding that are
secured by a special tax levied pursuant to the CFD Act or a special
assessment levied on property with the CFD. The determination in the
preceding clause (iii) is based on the full cash value of such property as shown
on the ad valorem tax roll of the County of Alameda.
For purposes of Section 53363.2 of the CFD Act, (i) it is expected that
the purchase of the CFD Bonds will occur on or after June 21, 2010, (ii).the
date, denomination, maturity dates, places of payment and form of the CFD
Bonds shall be as set forth in the Fiscal Agent Agreement for the CFD Bonds,
(iii) the minimum rate of interest to be paid on the CFD Bonds shall be one
percent (1 with the actual rate or rates to be set forth in the Fiscal :Age. nt
greement for the CFD Bonds as executed, (iv) the place of payment for the
Prior CFD Bonds shall be as set forth in the Fiscal Agent Agreement for the
Prior CFD Bonds; and (v) the designated costs of issuing the CFD Bonds.
be as described in Section 53363.8(a) of the CFD -Act, and as otherwise
described in the Fiscal Agent Agreement for the CFD Bonds and the closing
certificates for the CFD Bonds.
Section 4. The Fiscal Agent Agreements, in the respective forms on file
with the City Clerk, which Fiscal. Agent Agreements provide, in .substance,
provisions for the payment of and covenants relating to the Reassessment
Bonds and the CFD Bonds (collectively, the "Bonds are hereby pp a roved.
The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to execute the Fiscal
Agent Agreements on behalf of the City in such ..forms, together .with such
changes thereto as may be approved by the City Manager upon consultation
with the City Attorney and Bond Counsel, the approval of such. clan g es to be
conclusively evidenced by the execution and delivery of the Fiscal Agent
Agreements by the City.
The City Council hereby approves the refunding of each series of the
Prior Bonds with the proceeds of the applicable series of the Bonds, in
accordance with the provisions of the documents. pursuant to which the Prior
Bonds were sold and delivered, and an Escrow. Agreement for each series of
the Prior Bond, each among the City, the Authority and the Fiscal Agent or the
Agent, as applicable, for the Prior Bonds, as escrow bank thereunder. The City
Council hereby approves the Escrow Agreements in the respective. forms on file
with the City Clerk. The City Council hereby authorizes and directs the City
Manager to execute and deliver the Escrow Agreements on behalf of.the City in
such forms, together with any changes therein or additions thereto deemed
advisable by the City Manager upon consultation with Bond Counsel and the
City Attorney, the approval of such changes to be conclusively evidenced by
the execution and delivery of the Escrow Agreements by the City.
ME
Section 5. Union Bank, N.A., is hereby designated to act as the Fiscal
Agent for the Bonds and to perform the actions and duties required of the
Fiscal Agent under the Fiscal Agent Agreements, including those for the
authentication, transfer, registration, and payment of the Bonds. The city
Manager is hereby authorized enter into an agreement with the Fiscal Agent for
its services as the Fiscal Agent under the Fiscal Agent Agreements.
Section 8. The forms of the Refunding Agreement and the Purchase
Contract on file with the city clerk are hereby approved. The City Manager is
hereby authorized and directed to execute the Refunding Agreement and the
Purchase contract in the forms hereby approved, with such additions therein
and changes thereto as the city Manager upon consultation with the City
Attorney and Bond counsel, deems necessary or desirable, with such approval
to be conclusively evidenced by the execution and delivery of such agreements
by the city.
The city Council hereby approves the issuance of the .Au .thprity Bonds
by the Authority and the sale of the Authority Bonds by public sale pursuant to
the Notice of Intention and the official Notice of safe as such documents are
approved by the Board of Directors of the Authority.
This city council hereby finds and determines that the sale of the CFD
Bonds to the Authority at negotiated sale as contemplated by the Refunding
Agreement and the Purchase contract will result in a lower overall cost.
Section 7. The Bonds, when executed, shall be delivered to. the Fiscal
Agent for authentication. The Fiscal Agent is hereby requested and directed to
authenticate the Bonds by executing the Fiscal Agent's certificate of
authentication and registration appearing thereon, and to deliver. the Bonds,
when duly executed and authenticated, to the Authority or its designee as
directed in the Refunding Agreement.
Section 8. The form of the Preliminary official statement for the
Authority Bonds presented at this meeting is hereby approved and the
Preliminary official Statement is hereby authorized to be ci.stributed= to
prospective purchasers of the Authority Bonds in the form hereby approved,
together with such additions thereto and changes therein as are determined
necessary or desirable by the city Manager, upon consultation .with Disclosure
Counsel and the city Attorney, to make such Preliminary official Statement
final as of its date for purposes of Rule 15c2-12 of the Securities and Bxchan e
g
Commission. The city Manager is hereby authorized to execu.te a final official
Statement in the form of the Preliminary official statement, together with such
changes as are determined necessary by the city Manager, upon consultation
with Disclosure counsel and the City Attorney, to make such official statement
complete and accurate as of its date. The distribution of the final official
Statement for the Authority Bonds and any supplement thereto to the
purchasers of the Authority Bonds is hereby authorized.
_5_
Section 9. The Mayor, city Manager, city Clerk and Treasurer of the
City and any other officers or staff of the city are hereby authorized and
directed to take any actions and execute and deliver any and all documents as
are necessary to accomplish the issuance, sale and delivery of the Bonds and
the refunding of the Prior Bonds in accordance with the provisions of this
Resolution and the fulfillment of the purposes of the Bonds as' described in the
Fiscal Agent Agreements and the Escrow Agreements.
Section 10. This Resolution shall take effect upon its adoption by this
City Council.
1, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly
and regularly adopted and passed by the council of the city of Alameda in a
regular meeting assembled on the 15th day of June, 2010, by the following vote
to wit:
AYES
NOES:
ASSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the
seal of said city this loth day of June, 2010.
Lara Weisiger, City clerk
City of Alameda
N
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: honorable Mayor and
Members of the city Council
From: Ann Marie Gallant
Interim City Manager
Date: June 1 5, 2010
Re: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the Interim city .Manager to Apply for
Regional Measure 1 Five Percent Unrestricted State Funds, and Regional
Measure 1 Two Percent Bridge Toll Reserve Funds, and regional
Measure 2 Bridge Toll Funds, for the operating Subsidy a.nd Capital
Projects for the city of Alameda Ferry Services, and to Enter into all
Documents and Agreements Necessary to Secure These Funds for. Fiscal
Year 2010 2011
BACKG ROUND
In November 1989, voters approved Regional Measure 1 (RIV11) authorizing a toll
increase of $'1.00 for vehicles on all state -owned bridges in the Bay Area. By state 1a
as amended, five percent of RM 1 revenue is set aside for water transit operations while
an additional two percent is made available for ferry capital improvem protects. In
2004, voters approved Regional Measure 2 (RM2) authorizing an additional toll increase
on the state -owned bridges, a portion of which is to be used for tr y y
ansba ferr service.
While the Metropolitan Transportation ComrT ission (MTC) has adrninistered this rant
9
program in the past, MTC is in the process of transferring the program. adrn.inistration to
the Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA).: For Y 1 0 -11, SETA
has asked the city to submit the RM 1 and RM2 grant applications to MTC. on .its. behalf.
Staff is currently in negotiations with WETA to transfer the Alameda ferries to WETA
and anticipates bringing this item to the city council within the next several :months.
DISCUSSION
Applications for Operating Funds: Staff estimates that FY10 -1 1 operating funds
available to the city will consist of $1,518,157 from RM 1 and $439,410 from RM2.
Securing the RM2 grant will require MTC approval and may be contingent upon a city
commitment to transfer the ferry services to WETA in FY10 -11.
Alameda /Oakland Ferry Service (AOFS) The City requests $1,353,807 in RM I
5% revenue and $439,410 in RM2. The proposed AOFS operating budget is
$4,885,380. Adoption of the final pro forma budget is also on the June 15, 2010
City Council agenda. Projected AOFS revenue consists of:
City Council
Report Fie:
Honorable Mayor and June 15, 2010
Members of the City Council Page 2 of 3
RM 1 $1,353,807
RM2 (WETA -owned vessel operation) $256,600
RM2 (operating subsidy) $439,410
Measure B $405,514
Port of Oakland $60,649
Farebox Revenue $2,150,400
Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry (AHBF) The City requests a RM11 -5% grant of
$164,350. The proposed AHBF operating budget is $2,488,695. Adoption of the
final pro forma budget is also on the June 15, 2010 City Council agenda.
Projected AHBF revenue consists of:
RM1 $164,350
RM2 (WETA Owned Vessel operation) $446,200
Measure B $393,951
Farebox Revenue $740,000
Transportation Improvement Fund (TIF) $500,000
Landscape and Lighting District $78,194
Harbor Bay Business Park Association $130,000
Charters $36,000
Applications for Capital projects: The City is requesting $500,000 in RM 1 -2% grants
for three capital projects. These are:
Alameda Harbor Bay Barge Replacement This project provides for purchase
and installation of a refurbished landing barge at the Harbor.Bay Ferry terminal.
The City Council approved the initial project budget of $650,000. in May 2009.
The project is now expected to cost an additional $87,800, for a total project cost
of $737,800. The Public works Department proposes to secure the required
$87,800 from a FY10 -11 RM 1 -2% grant of $68,000 and with $19,800 from
WETA. The $19,800 from WETA is for WETA- requested modifications to the
new float. Total project funding would then consist of: $75,000 from TIF,
$356,000 from 2009 RM 1 -2 $219,000 from RM 1 FY08 -09 $19,800 from
WETA, and $68,000 from FY10 -11 R.M 1 -2
Peralta -New Port Radar —Total project cost and grant request is $15,000.
Ferry* Terminals Parking Lot Rehabilitation This project provides $450,000 for
the rehabilitation of both the Main street and Harbor Bay ferry terminal parking
lots. Project funding consists of: $417,000 in RM 1 -2% grants and $33,000 from
the City's ferry service Measure B reserves.
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
FINANCIAL IMPACT
June 15, 2010
Page 3 of 3
The City ferry services are budgeted in the Capital Improvement Program (Project Nos.
021.20 and 521.10), with monies allocated through RM1, RM2 (for the 'WETA -owned
vessels and ferry operating subsidy), Measure B, farebox revenue, and a contribution
from the Port of Oakland. The RM1 -5% grant request is for $1,518,157. The City is
submitting three capital projects for a total RMI -2% grant request of $500,000. There is
no impact on the General Fund associated with operations of the Alameda ferries.
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
The City's Ferry Services are consistent with the General Plan Transportation Element
Guiding Policy 4.3.f. and the Transportation and Land Use Initiative of the Local Action
Plan for Climate Protection.
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the capital
improvement projects are Categorically Exempt under the CEQA Guidelines section
15301(c), Existing Facilities.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution authorizing the Interim City Manager to apply for RM1 -5%
unrestricted state funds, and RM 1 -2% bridge toll reserve funds, and RM2 bridge toll
funds, for the operating subsidy and capital projects for the City of Alameda ferry
services, and to enter into all documents and agreements necessary to secure these
funds for FY10 -11.
Apvcwed as to funds and account,
Evelyn Leung
Interim Supervising Accountant
cc: Watchdog Committee (Ferry)
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City council
From: Ann Marie Gallant
Interim City Manager
Date: June 15, 2010
Re: Authorize the Interim City Manager to Negotiate and Execute a Fifth
Amendment to the Amended and Restated Ferry Services .Agreement with
the Pori" of Oakland to Extend the Term for one Additional Year at a Cost
of $60.649
01 M
On July 1, 2004, the City council approved the Ferry Service Agreement between. the
City of Alameda and the Port of Oakland (the Parties), whereby the city, through its
ferry operator, provides ferry service between Jack London Square and San Francisco
for a set fee paid by the Port of Oakland (Port). In June 2005, the Parties entered .into
the Amended and Restated Ferry Service Agreement between tha City and fhin Port.
Since that time the Parties have amended the agreement to extend the. term, set the fee
paid by the Port for ferry service, and allow the city, with the Port's. consent, to assign
the agreement to the Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA). The .Parties
now want to amend the agreement, the fifth amendment, to set the Port's c for. ferry
service and extend the term for one additional year. As part of the C.ity's on -going
negotiations to transfer the Alameda Ferry Services within the next several months,
WETA has reviewed and concurs with the proposed amendment,
DISCUSSION
The principal terms of the agreement are:
0 Term: The agreement term is from July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2011.
Fee: As consideration for the city's provision of ferry service through the ferry
operator between Jack London Square and San Francisco, the Port will pay the
City $60,649 for FY1 0-11. This is a $10,000 decrease from the $70,649 provided
by the Port for FY09 -10. The $10,000 is needed by the Port to make needed
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) modifications to the clay Street ferry
terminal float.
City Council
Report Re:
Benda Item #6-Fi
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
June 15, 2010
Page 2 of 2
Port staff expects the Board of Port Commissioners to approve the Fifth Amendment to
the Agreement at the Commission's June 15, 2010 meeting. A copy of the Fifth
Amendment to the Agreement is on file in the City Clerk's office.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
This project is budgeted in the Capital Improvement Program (Project No. 621.20 with
monies allocated through Regional Measure 1, Regional Measure 2, Measure B funds,
and farebox revenue. There is no impact to the General Fund associated with
Alameda /Oakland Ferry Service operations.
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
The City's Ferry Service is consistent with the General Plan Transportation Element
Guiding Policy 4.3.f. and the Transportation and Land Use Initiative of the Local Action
[--'Ian Tor UI mate Pro' 1ection.
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the Interim City Manager to negotiate and execute a fifth amendment to the
amended and restated ferry services agreement with the Port to extend the term for one
additional year at a cost of $60,649.
Respect ub it d,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
Approved as to funds and account,
Evelyn Leung
Interim Supervising Accountant
Exhibit:
1. Fifth Amendment to Agreement (on file in the City Clerk's office)
cc: Watchdog Committee (Ferry)
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
AUTHORIZING THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER TO APPLY FOR
�s REGIONAL MEASURE
1 FIVE PERCENT UNRESTRICTED STATE
FUNDS AND TWO PERCENT BRIDGE T
OLL RESERVE FUNDS FOR
THE OPERATING SUBSIDY, AND CAPITAL PROJECTS AND REGIONAL
6 MEASURE 2 BRIDGE TOLL FUNDS, FOR THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
FERRY SERVICES AND, TO ENTER INTO ALL AGREEMENTS
I
NECESSARY TO SECURE THESE FUNDS FOR FY10 -11
WHEREAS, Regional Measure 1 (November 1988) and Regional Measure 2
(2004) created revenues for allocation by Metropolitan Transportation commission;
and
WHEREAS, the monies can be used to fund planning, operating and capital
projects for water transit purposes which are designed to reduce vehicular traffic on
the bridges; and
WHEREAS, the public entities are eligible applicants; and
WHEREAS, the City of Alameda operates the Alameda /Oakland Ferry Service
(AOFS) and the Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry (AHBF); and
WHEREAS, staff has identified the need for an operational subsidy for these
ferry services; and
WHEREAS, the city has identified the need for three capital projects
necessary for the efficient operation of these ferry services.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City council .of the city of
Alameda does hereby approve the applications for both the AHBF. and.the AO FS for
FY10 --11 and authorizes the INTERIM CITY MANAGER to apply er Re
y g
Measure 1 Five Percent Unrestricted State Funds and Two Percent Fridge Toll
Revenue Funds for the operating Subsidy and Capital Projects, and for. Regional
Measure 2 operating Subsidy, and to enter into all agreements necessary to secure
these funds.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the city clerk is hereby directed to forward
a certified copy of this resolution to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
Resolution #6 -F
06 -1a
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly adopted and passed by the council of the city of Alameda in a regular
meeting assembled on the 1 5th day of June, 2010, by the following Vote to wit:
AYES:
[SOBS:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set nay hand and affixed the official
seal of said city this 10th day of June, 2010.
Lara vve.isiger, city clerk
City of Alameda
WALEC[TY OF ALA MEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the city Council
From: Ann Marie Gallant
Interim city Manager
Date: June 15, 2010
Re: Authorize the Interim city Manager to Negotiate and Execute an Eighth
Amendment to the Sixth Amended and Restated Operating Agreement for
the Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry--and Adopt the Associated Budclets
BACKGROUND
n August 2004, the city of Alameda and Harbor Bay Maritime (H13M) entered into.theSixth
Amended and Restated operating Agreement for the Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry (AHBF).
The agreement is a multi -year, modified fixed subsidy contract in which .HBIII receives a
fixed subsidy, and the use of four publicly owned boats (two each from. the City and from
the Water Emergency Transportation Authority {WETAI), while retaining farebox revenue.
The agreement has been amended several times to extend the term. and set .se.rvoe and
subsidy levels. On June 19, 2009, the city council amended the agreementte extend the
contract for an additional year beginning July 1, 2009. The City and HBM propose to
amend the agreement and to extend the contract for an additional.year. beginning July :1
2010. As part of the City's on -going negotiations to transfer the Alameda Ferry.Se.rvices
within the next several months, META has reviewed and concurs with the proposed
amendment.
DISCUSSION
There are no proposed changes to service levels or schedules. The principal amendment
terms are:
Agreement Extension: The agreement terra is from July 1, 2010 to June 30,
2011.
0 Pro Forma Budget: The AHBF FY1 0-11 expenses, excluding charters, are
estimated at $2,322,095, including operator commute-only expenses of
$1,470,050, and City contractual expenses of $848,045. operator. expenses
include onboard labor costs of $807,000 (Table 1). city contractual expenses
(Table 2) include: $05,500 forvessel maintenance contingency and $384,000 for
fuel. In addition, there is a $290,450 operator subsidy, which is a $3,450
City Council
Report Red
Benda Item #6=Fii
064 5=1 0
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
June 15, 2010
Page 2 of 4
increase from the current year's subsidy of $287,000 (Table 4). Total public
funding, including farebox revenue and a WETA Regional Measure 2 (RM2)
contribution of $446,200, is $2,322,695 (Table 3).
Fuel: Since July 1, 2006, fuel cost has been a pass through expense paid by
the City. HBM is not allowed any nark -up of fuel costs. The $384,000 budgeted
for fuel assumes 120,000 gallons at $3.20 per gallon (Table 2 The price for
fuel is currently $2.68 per gallon.
Vessel Maintenance Contingency: The budget also includes an AHBF vessel
maintenance contingency as part of the HBM operating budget. These funds
are held by the City and made available to HBM to offset actual vessel
maintenance costs incurred in the fiscal year that exceeds the regular
maintenance budget. At the end of the fiscal year, any unspent funds.are
transferred to the Long -Term Reserve Account (LTRA). The FY10 -11
contingency is $65,500 (Table 2
Long Term Reserve Account (LTRA): The LTRA is an account used by the
City to accumulate funds overtime for use on major vessel capital projects such
as equipment overhaul, replacement, or dry docking. I n anticipation of the
possible transfer of the ferry service to the WETA, there is no budgeted
allocation for FY10 -11 (Table 2
Subsidy: HBM will receive a total year operating subsidy of $290,450 in 24
semi-monthly installments of $1 2,102 each (Table 4).
Farebox Recovery Ratio (FRR The FRR is a measure of the percent of
operating costs off set by revenue from ticket sales. FRR is calculated by
dividing revenue from ticket sales by operating costs. The Metropolitan
Transportation Commission requires a FRR of 40% or better to be eligible to
receive Regional Measure 1 (RMI) operating and capital grants. The projected
FY10 -11 FRR, excluding RM2 funds that are used for WETA -owned vessel
operation, is approximately 40
Harbor Bay Ferry Terminal: The Harbor Bay Ferry Terminal, which is owned
by the City, is managed and maintained by contract with the Harbor Bay
Business Park Association (HBBP). The budget for FY10 -11 is $86,194 and
includes $78,194 for maintenance and $8,000 for insurance (Table 2 Property
owners in the HBBP contribute $78,194 through the Landscape and Lighting
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
June 15, 2010
Page 3 of 4
Assessment District 84 -2, Zone 5. The remaining $8,000 is from the
Transportation Improvement Fund (TIF).
Alameda Ferry Services Capital Projects /Fiscal Year 2010 2011 —There are
three capital projects at the cost of $552,800 that are anticipated during FY10 -11
(Table 5). These projects include: Peralta New Port Radar ($15,000); the
Harbor Bay Terminal Barge Replacement ($87,800); and Ferry Terminals (Main
Street and Harbor Bay) Parking Lot Rehabilitation ($450,000). These projects
will be funded through RM1 -2% and RM2.
A copy of the Eighth Amendment to the Agreement is on file in the city Clerk's office.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The project is budgeted under the capital Improvement Program (Project...No. 521
Public funding for FY1 0-11 operations is allocated from farebox revenue, RM1, Measure B,
RM2 (for WETA -boat operations) and TI F. TI F is comprised of 50.% of the tax increment
within the HBBP and the construction improvement tax collected as part of the building
permit process. TI F was established to finance transportation related projects that reduce
traffic impacts from the HBBP development.
The farebox revenue is estimated to be $740,000, and assumes 148,000 tickets will be
sold at an average cost of $5.00 each. Proposed capital projects of $552,800 are funded
from RM1 ($500,000), Measure B Reserves ($33,000), and RM2 ($19,800). The RM2
operating allocation requires Metropolitan Transportation Commission approval, and that
approval maybe contingent upon a City commitment to transfer the ferry service to WETA
in FY10 -11. The AHBF Pro Forma Budget is provided as Table 1. Total FY10 -11 revenue
for both the Alameda /Oakland Ferry Service and the AHBF is provided in Table 6. There is
no impact to the General Fund associated with AHBF operations.
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
The city's Ferry Service is consistent with the General Plan Transportation Element
Guiding Policy 4.3.f. and the Transportation and Land Use Initiative of the Local Action
Plan for climate Protection.
Honorable Ma and
Members of the Cit Council
RECOMMENDATION
June 15, 2010
Pa 4 of 4
Authorize the Interim Cit Mana to ne and execute an ei amendment to the
sixth amended and restated operatin a for the AHBF and adopt the associated
bud
Approved as to funds and account,
Evel Leun
Interim Supervisin Accountant
MTN:ES:
Exhibit(s):
1.
Ei Amendment
to A (on file in the Cit Clerk's office)
2.
Table I
AHBF Operatin Expenses
3.
Table 2
-Cit Contractual Expenses
4.
Table 3 AHBF Revenues FY10-1 1 (Public and Private
5.
Table 4
AHBF Operator Subsid
6.
Table 5 -Cit
Ferr Services FYI 0-11 Capital Projects
7.
Table 6
—Cit Ferr Services FYI 0-11 Revenue
cc: Watchdo Committee (Ferry)
Table 1 AH B F Operating Expenses
ITEM
FY10 -11 FY09 -10
BUDGET BUDGET
2009
ACTUAL
1. Commute Service
Vessel Expenses
Fuel
n.a. n.a.
n.a.
Urea/Pisces Tank
$0 $21
$2,590
Labor:
Wages, P/R taxes, Health, Pension
$607 $600,000
$589,718
Maintenance En ineer /BB Express 11
$40 $40
$41
Maintenance En ineerNVETA Boats
$80 $60,000
$39,414
Insurance (Vessels)
BB and Express 11
$85,000 $90,000
$77,876
WETA Boats
$202 $154
89,066
Vessel Maintenance
Reg. AHBF maintenance
$80,000 $80,000
$100,000
WETA boats
$24
$68
Pisces Dr dock
30
Scorpio drydock
$20
W I FI service
$6
Total 'Vessel Expenses
$1 $1,045,400
$1,008,423
Non Vessel Expenses
SF Pier 48 rent:
HBM
$17,000 $24,000
$11,340
WETA
$17,000
Weststar Pier 48 lashbar e
$48 $0
$8
East Bay Berth:
H B M
$12
WETA
$12
WETA Pier 48 bare (Marine Express)
$60 $107
$1 07,000
Utilities, auto, legal, payroll processin
$62 $54,000
$87.
Admin Salaries
$52,000 $52,000
$43
Ticket printing, web site, advertising
$12 $12
$9,485
Insurance Deductible
$Q
Total Non Vessel Expenses
$292,000 $249,000
$268
Operator Fees:
Overhead /Accounting
$0 $0
$0
Operator Contingency
$1 0 $10
n.a
Total operator fees
$10 $10
$0
Total Commute Service Cost
$1 $1,304,400
$1
11. Charter/ Concessions
Vessel Expenses
Fuel
$1,000 $1,000
$933
Labor
$2 $1
$2
Insurance
$0 $0
$0
Vessel Maintenance:
$1 $600
$1,305
Total Vessel Expenses
$4,400 $2,600
$4 3 418
Non Vessel Expenses
City council
Exhibit 2 to
Report Re:
Agenda Item #6 -Fil
06-15-10
Docking fees (Sacramento, SF)
$400
$400
$0
Utilities, auto, legal, payroll processing
$1,200
$1 ,200
$1 ,200
Adrnin Salaries
$0
$0
$0
Marketing
$0
$00
$0
Misc. (concessions, catering, ground
transportation)
$30
$30,000
$25
Total Non vessel Expenses
$31,600
$31
$26
Operator Fees:
Overhead /Accounting
$120,000
$120
$120,000
Operator contingency/profit
$1 0
$2,800
$20
Total Charter /Concessions
$'166,000
$157
$170
Total operator commute Charter
$1,642,650
$1
$1 115
Ill. City Contractual Expenses (Table 2)
$846
$704
$607,659
Total (Operator commute charter City)
$2,488
$2
$2
Total (Operator commute City)
$2
$27008
$1 ,884,132
Revenue (public funding farebox)
$2
$2,098
$1
Farebox revenue
$740
$740
$685
"operator commute City" less WETA
vessel expenses
$1
n.a.
n.a.
Table 2 City Contractual Expenses
ITEM
FY10 -11
BUDGET
FY09 -10
BUDGET
2009
ACTUAL
Operations:
S.F Ferry Building Docking fee
$22,851
$19,870
$19,870
Harbor Bay Terminal:
Insurance
$8,000
$6,000
$7,872
Maintenance
$78,194
$71,000
$71,000
Dredging (Phase II)
$125,900
Fuel (120,000 gals $3.20 ea.
$384,000
$390,000
$324,597
MUNI
$45,000
$31,000
$26,441
Marketing (excl charter)
$15,000
$15,000
$2,736
Bus Bridge
$8,000
$0
$1,488
City Admin
$50,000
$81,000
$48,060
Risk Management
$18,000
$17,926
$9,080
Cost Allocation
$22,000
$0
10,944
Office supplies /misc. admin /utilities
$2,100
$1,036
$1,926
Back Up boat
$0
$0
$0
Audit (Maze)
$1,500
$1,470
$1,404
Misc.
$0
$0
$0
Long Term Capital Reserve
Accounts:
Vessels:
Express II
$0
$5,000
$10.000
Bay Breeze
$0
$5,000
$61,298
HB Terminal
$0
$0
$0
Subtotal reserves
$0
$10,000
$71,298
Contingency:
Vessel Maintenance
$65,500
$60,000
$0
Fuel contingent
$0
$0
N/A
Subtotal contingency
$65,500
$60,000
$0
Total /operations
$846,045
$704,302
$607,659
City Council
Exhibit 3 to
Report Re:
Agenda Item #6 -F 11
Table 3 AHBF Revenues FY10 -11 (Public and Private)
(1) $267,748 in FY 2010 -11 revenue and $126,203 in MB reserves
City Council
Exhibit 4 to
Report Re:
Agenda Item ##6 -Fii
Total L ess
Total Less
Less WETA
Source Amoun t
Capital
Charter
vessel
P roects
Concessions
Expenses
MTC RM 1 -5% $1 64,350
$1 64,350
$1 64,350
$1 64,350
WETA RM2:
WETA owned
Vessels $446,200
$446,200
$446,200
$0
Operations $0
$0
$0
$0
Measure B (1) $393,951
$393,961
$393,951
$393,961
Transportation
Improvement
Fu nd
Operations $492,000
$492,000
$492,000
$492,000
HB terminal
insurance $8,000
8
$8,000
$8,000
LIRA $0
$0
$0
Capital and
Maintenance
projects
LLAD 84 -2 $78
$78
$78
$78
Harbor Bay
Business Park
Association $1 30,000
$1 30,000
$0
Concessions $30,000
$30,000
Charter $6,000
$6,000
Subtotal $1 ,748,695
$1,748,695
$1 ,582,695
$1 3.6,495
Farebox $740,000
$740,000
$740,000
$740,000
Total $2,488,696
$2,488,695
$2
$1
Farebox
Recovery Ratio
(FRR) n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
40%
(1) $267,748 in FY 2010 -11 revenue and $126,203 in MB reserves
City Council
Exhibit 4 to
Report Re:
Agenda Item ##6 -Fii
Table 4 —AHBF Operator Subsidy
ITEM
FY10 -11
FY09 -10
FY08 -09
Operator expenses (1
Budgeted
$1,476,650
$1,287,400
$902,000
Less WETA Operator Spare
Vessel costs
$446,200
$325,400
N/A
Net operator expenses
$1,030,450
$962,000
$902,000
Farebox revenue (1):
Budgeted
$740,000
$675,000
$710,000
Public subsidy /yearly (3)
$290,450
$287,000
$192,000
Bi- Monthly subsidy payment (4)
$12,102
$11,958
$11,801
(1) Commute Service Only
City Council
Exhibit 5 to
Report Rev
Agenda Item #6 -1711
06-15-10
Table 5 city Ferry Services FY 10 -11 Capital Projects
City council
Exhibit 6 to
Report Re:
Agenda Item #6 -F i
06 -15 -10
Funning
Funning
Funding
Funding
Project
Total
RIV11 -2% Fly
RM2 (WETA)
Measure
Total
1 0 11
B
Reserves
Peralta: New Port
$15
Radar
$15
H B Barge
$87,800
$08,000
$19,800
Replacement
$87,800
Ferry Terminal
$450,000
$33,000
Parking lot Rehab:
Main Street /HB.
$450,000
TOTAL
$552,800
$500,000
$1%800
$33,000
$552
City council
Exhibit 6 to
Report Re:
Agenda Item #6 -F i
06 -15 -10
Table 6 City Ferry services FY10 -11 Revenue
REVENUE /operating
Total
Alameda
Harbor Bay
Ferry
AOFS
Fa rebox
$2
$740
$2,1 50,400
MTC RM 1--5%
$1,518,157
$1 64 1 350
$1
WETA RM2:
W ETA boat
operation
$702
$446
$256,600
Operations
$439
$439
Measure B:
'1 0111 revenue
$673,262
$267
$405,514
Reserves
$1261203
$126
$0
Subtotal /MB
$799,465
$3939951
$405
Port of Oakland
$60
$D
S,60
Transportation Improvement
Fund:
Ferry operations
$492
$492,000
HB terminal insurance
$8,000
$8
Capital /LTRA
$0
$0
Subtotal /TIF
$500
$500
LLAD 84-2/terminal
$78
$78
Harbor Bay Business Park
Associates
$130
$130
Concessions
$30
$30
Charter
$6,000
$6,000
Subtotal
$7,'155,075
$2,488
$4,666,380
Capital Projects Funding:
RM 2
19
RM 1--2% FY'1o111
$500
Measure B Reserves
33
Subtota[ /capitaI projects
$418,700
Total
$7
City Council
Exhibit 7 to
Report Re:
Agenda Item #6 -Fli
06- 15 -10
CITY OF ALLIED
Memorandum
To Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Ann Marie Gallant
Interim City Manager
Date: June 15, 2010
Re: Authorize the Interim City Manager to Negotiate and Execute an
Amendment to the Agreement to Extend the Term for one Additional Year
of the Blue Gold Fleet operating Agreement with the Alameda /Oakland
Ferry Service and Adoot Associated Budoets
BACKGROUND
On August 1, 2004, the City of Alameda and Blue Gold Fleet (B &GF) entered into an
agreement for the Alameda /Oakland Ferry Service (AOFS). The agreement is a cost
plus fixed fee contract wherein the operator receives a fixed management fee and the
use of two City -owned and two Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA)-
owned commuter boats. operational costs are passed through to. the city and paid in
advance on a monthly basis. Farebox revenue is collected by B&GF. and used to offset
operating costs. The city and B&G F (Parties) have amended the agreerent ..several
times to extend the term, revise insurance provisions, set B. &GF management fees, fix
labor and maintenance rates, cap expenses, and allow the city to assign the agreement
to wETA. As part of the city's on -going negotiations to transfer the Alameda Ferry
Services within the next several months, 1111 ETA has reviewed and concurs with the
proposed amendment. The Parties propose to amend the agreement and extend the
contract for one year, beginning July 1, 2010.
DISCUSSION
There are no proposed changes to service levels or schedules. The principal terms of
the agreement are:
0 Term: The agreement term is from July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2011.
Pro Forma Budget: The AOFS FY10 -11 operations budget totals
$4,000,380, compared to budgeted expenses for FY09 -10 of $4,031,757.
AOFS expenses are detailed in Table 1.
Lj Operator Fees: B &GF FY10 -11 fixed management and administration
overhead fees will be held at the current level of $217,795 per year. In
addition, the operator performance incentive ...ba.sed... on.. c.ustonner
City Council
Report Re:
Agenda Item #6-Dili
06 =15 -10
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
June 15, 2010
Page 2 of 3
satisfaction survey results and on -time performance will increase to
$87,238 from the current level of $84,69.8. Total operator fees
including overhead, management, and performance will be $305,033
compared to the $302,493, budgeted for the current year. In addition,
the onboard labor budget totals $1 ,600,000, compared to budgeted
expenses for FY09 -10 of $1 ,554,000.
city costs. city FY10 -11 expenses are expected to be $733,893,
compared to budgeted expenses for FY09 -10 of $733,239 (see Table
2). city costs include $101,000 for marketing, and $175,000 for
operating contingency.
Fuel: FY10 -11 fuel budget totals $885,000 for 300,000 gallons at $2.95 per
gallon compared to budgeted fuel for FY09 -10 of $840,000. The price B &c F
currently pays for fuel is $2.56 per gallon.
Revenue: Public funding totals $4,666,380 and is provided from Regional
Measure 1 (RIVIII), measure B, the Port of Oakland (Port), and farebox
revenues (see Table 3). In addition, WETA will contribute Regional.Measure
2 (RM2) funds for WETA -owned vessel operations and for AOFS operating
subsidy. The RIV12 allocation requires Metropolitan Transportation
Commission approval, and that approval may be contingent upon. a city
commitment to transfer the ferry service to WETA in FY10 -11. The. projected
farebox revenue of $2,150,400 assumes 420,000 tickets sold at an average
cost of $5.12. This is a projected two percent increase over the 411,000 sold
in calendar year 2009.
Farebox Recovery Ratio (FRR): The FRR is a measure of the percent
of operating costs offset by revenue from ticket sales. FRR is
calculated by dividing revenue from ticket sales by operating costs.
AOFS FRR is projected to be 46.08% (see Table 4).
Maim Street Ferry Terminal: The city owns the main Street Ferry terminal.
The FY10 -11 budget totals $125,277 and includes $40,563 for maintenance,
$67,473 for an unarmed parking lot patrol guard, and $17,241 for utilities,
external security audit, and insurance.
A copy of the amendment to the B &CF Agreement is on file in the city clerk's office.
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City council
FINANCIAL IMPACT
June 1 5, 2010
Page 3of3
The AOFS is budgeted under the Capital Improvement Program (Project No. 021.20),
with monies allocated through RM 1, Measure B funds, RM2, farebox revenues, and a
contribution from the Port. The AOFS Pro Forma Budget is provided as Table 1. Total
FY10 -1 I revenue for both ferry services is provided in Table 5. There is no impact to
the General Fund associated with AOFS operations.
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
The city's Ferry Service is consistent with the General Plan Transportation Element
Guiding Policy 4.3.f. and the Transportation and Land Use Initiative of the Local Action
Plan for climate Protection.
:����1 ►►1�� ►1�0 7�r[7�
Authorize the Interim city Manager to negotiate and execute an amendment to the
agreement to extend the term for one additional year of the B &GF operating agreement
with the AOFS and adopt associated budgets.
Resp Ily su itt d,
Y
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
Approved as to funds and account,
Evel n Leung
Interim Supervising Accountant
Exhibit(s):
1. Amendment to the B &GF Agreement (on file in the City Clerk's office)
2. Table 1 AOFS Budgeted Expenses
3. Table 2 AOFS City Expenses
4. Table 3 AOFS FY10 -11 Revenue
5. Table 4 AOFS Farebox Recovery Ratio
6. Table 5 —City Ferry Services FY10 -11 Revenue
cc: Watchdog Committee (Ferry)
Table 1 AOFS Budgeted Expenses
EXPENSES Budget FY10 -11
Budget FY09 -10
Actual
2009
Vessel Expenses:
Wages (2 )(3) $1,600
$1
$1
Maintenance:
Pier 9 $135,000
$145,000
$184
Outside contractors $269
$145
$423,164
City Vessel Dr dock $190,000
1111 ETA vessel d r dock $95,000
wIF1 Service $12
Fuel $885
$840,000
$602
Urea $11,000
$11,000
Insurance:
$150,000
$49,845
City owned boats $60,000
$55
1111 ETA owned boats $146
Deductible payment $50
$50,000
Rental of Carrier boats $3,000
$15
$27
Misc. $0
$5
$8,068
Total Vessel Expenses $3,456,100
$2,865,000:
$2
Non Vessel Expenses
Contract services $7
$5
$20
Professional fees /legal $7,000
$7
$1
Customer Service $15,000
$15
$44,789
Advertising $0
$0
$11
La berth for 1111ETA vessels $14
n.a.
n.a.
Taxes/Permits/licenses $14,000
$14
$17,719
Insurance (7) 0
..0
$0
Port SF/ Pier 39 fees $91
$89,250
$81
Subtotal Non Vessel Expenses $148
$131,025
$176
Operator Fees:
Admin /Overhead fees $50,319
$50
$50
Management $167,476
$167
$167,476
Performance Based Fee.
Can Time Performance $43,619
$42
$42,349
Customer Satisfaction $43,619
$42
$42
Subtotal operator Fees $305,033
$302
$302
Subtotal /Operator Expenses $3,910,014
$3,298
$3,262,5'10
City Contractual Expenses
Table 2 $756,366
$733,239
$521 9 885
Total Expenses (City Operator) $4
$4,031,757
$3,784,695
PROJECTED REVENUE $4
$4,03'1,757
$3,754
(2) For FY 2010 -11, assumes 300,000 gals at $2.95/gal. Includes lube oil.
(2) The City's cost for a "capped" line item cannot exceed budgeted amount.
City Council
Exhibit 2 to
Report Res
Agenda Item #6 -Fiii
06-15-10 D
Table 2 AOFS City Contractual Expenses
[tern
Budget FY10.11
Budget FY09 -10
Actual 2009
Operations:
Docking fees:
Ferry Building
$40
$34,947
$34
AT &T Park landing fee
(Giants)
$3,250
$3,000
$800
AT &T Park Passenger fee
51 5
$0
$0
ARRA Barge lease
515
$54
$15,375
MUN I
525
$19,000
$16,799
Marketing
$101,000
$90
$75,000
Bus Bridge
$4,000
$0
$1,860
Administration:
City Adrn in
$190
$210,442
$186,369
Risk Management charge
$18,000
$9
Cost Allocation
$21,876
$0
$10,938
Interest Allocation
$0
$0
$2,069
Audit
$5,200
$4,800
$5,106
PVA Membership
$1,455
$1,400
$1;455
Office supplies
$4,000
$3
$3
Surveys
$11,000
$11,000
$8
Subtotal operations
$456
$432,239
$371
Reserves:
Long Term Capital
Reserve:
Encinal
$0
$20,000
$20 000
Peralta
$0
$20,000
$20,000
Dock (Main Street)
$0
$10,000
$1 0,000
Operations Contingent
$175
$159
:..$0
Subtotal Reserves
$175
$209
$50,000
Main Street Terminal:
Utilities /securit audit
$11
$7,000
$15,992
Maintenance
$40 7 553
$25,000
$22,421
Patrol Guard
$67,473
$60,000
$61,715
Insurance
5,500
Subtotal Terminal
$125,277
$92,000
$100,128
Total
$733,893
$733
$521 ,885
(1) The $190,000 is 314 of a full time staff position. The remaining 1 /4 is an expense item in the
Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry budget. Salary includes benefits and City overhead per Cost
Allocation Study.
City Council
Exhibit 3 to
Report Re:
Agenda Item ##6 -Flli
O6 -15-10
Table 3 —AOFS FY10 -11 Revenue
REVENUE
TOTAL
Farebox
$2
W ETA Vessels /RM2
$266,600
WETA operating subsidy
$439,410
MTC RM 1 -5%
$1 ,363,807
Measure B
$406,614
Port of Oakland
$60,649
Total
1 $4,888,38a
AOFS; Approximately 420,000 tickets a@ $5.12 each.
city Council
Exhibit 4 to
Report Re:
Agenda Item #6-1=111
06 -15 -10
Table 4 AOFS Farebox Recovery Ratio (FRR)
Total expenses
$4,666
Farebox revenue
$2,160
Farebox Recovery Ratio
46.08%
City council
Exhibit 5 to
Report Re:
Agenda Item ##6- iii
Table 5 City Ferry Services FY10-1 1 Revenue
REVENUE/operating
Total
Alameda Harbor
Bay Ferry
AOFS
Farebox
$2
$740
$2 50
MTC RM 1 -5%
$1
$164,350
$1
W ETA RM2
W ETA boat operation
$702,800
$446
$256
Operating Subsid
$439,410
$439,410
Measure B:
'10/11 revenue
$673,262
$267
$405,514
Reserves
$126,203
$126
S0
S u btota 11111 B
$799
$393,951
$405,514
Port of Oakland
$60,649
$0
$60,649
Transportation Improvement Fund:
Ferry operations
$492,000
$492
HB terminal Insurance
$8
$8,000
Subtotal /T F
$500
$500,000
LLAD 84-2/terminal
$78
$78
Harbor Bay Business Park
Associates
$130
5130
Concessions
$30,000
$30
Charter
$6
$6
Subtotal
$7,155,075
$2,488
$4,666,380
Capital Projects Funding (1):
RM 2
19
RM 1 -2% FY '10111
$500,000
Measure B Reserves
$33,000
Subtotal /capital projects
$552
Total
$7
City Council
Exhibit 6 to
Report Re:
Agenda Item ##6 -Fiii
XTERNAL CORRESPONDENCE
Page I of 3
ordinance-independent Lara Weisi Re: Berkele campai finance
contributions
From: Jon Spangler <jonswriter @att.net>
To: Kate Quick <lcatequick @comcast.net>
Date: 6/4/2010 1:01 AM
Subject: Re: Berkeley campaign finance ordinance independent
contributions
CC: "'John Knox White <jknoxwhite @gmail.com "'Lena Tam
<ltam @ebmud.com "'Marie Gilmore
<mgilmore @ci.alameda.ca.us "'Teresa Highsmith
<THIGHSMI @ci.alameda.ca.us "'Lauren Do
<Lauren @laurendo.com "'Cara Weisiger
<lweisiger @ci. alameda. ca.us> I
Kate, John, and all,
My search was quite perfunctory and there may well be better language out
there than Berkeley's. (I just went to the city that I thought was most likely to
have an ordinance addressing independent expenditures and started surfing
the code.)
I plan to be there on June 15 to push for a stronger and more inclusive
ordinance that does not ignore PACs' independent expenditures and efforts
outside of campaign contributions and candidate committees. PAC
expenditures are the 800 -pound gorilla in the room, after all....
Jon
On Jun 3, 2010, at 6:58 PM, Kate Quick wrote:
Yes, we do hope for that. I am not happy with the "tea- party" type who posted today on Lauren's
blog that he and all his friends are going to vote against all the City Council incumbents because
they "didn't show any leadership Unfortunately, it takes three votes to get things done and in this
case, with only two wishing for more public process at the last Council meeting, their leadership will
not bear fruit. A more thoughtful approach would be to do an analysis of how each of the current
Council respond to questions where leadership is required and then vote one's conscience in an
informed way, rather than rely on emotions when one feels frustrated because things don't get done
as they think they should. We should observe the actions of City staff and the Council rationally
file: /fC. \D ocuments al Sett izgslcc user \Focal Settiligs\ Temp\XPgrpwise14CO8505AAlaiTi... 6/4/2010
rage 2 of
and unemotionally and assess their effectiveness based on the highest standards of good
government practices. Honesty, openness and transparency in the process of making public policy
are over arching principles which should not be taken lightly.
From: John Knox White mailto :jknoxwhite@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, .June 03, 2010 6:41 PM
To: Jon Spangler
Cc: Kate Quick; Lena Tara; Marie Gilmore; Teresa Highsmith; Lauren Do; Lara Weisiger
Subject: Re. Berkeley campaign finance ordinance independent contributions
Jon,
Your questions are good ones, and speak to the need for an open and robust public process
around such an important issue.
Hopefully the council will see that they are creating more problems than they are solving
and decide to act transparently on this issue by stepping back and writing a solid campaign
finance reform ordinance.
John I zox white
Vote Yes on Measure E, Vote Yes for our Community!
Visit http �uwvvw, alamedaschoo s.ot_g to make your contribution to APLUS
On Thu, Jun 3 2O l O at 3:37 Pill, Jon Spangler C o cry a tt,net wrote
Dear Kate, John, Lena, Marie, Lara, and Teri,
I dust found this in the Berkeley Municipal Code at ht :/codepublishrlg
Is Section 2.12.142 below adequate to the task of defining independent PAC expenditures
made on behalf of a candidate, in your opinion? If the campaign expenditures are limited in
the same way(s) as the campaign finance ordinance under consideration (6/1 and 6/15),
does this close the huge loophole well enough?
(I am cc'ing the City Attorney and City Clerk in case this reference is useful to them.. The
City Attorney has received no direction fr the Council to date to include tine regulation
of independent expenditures by PACs in the ordinance, only contributions by therm to
campaigns.)
Regards,
Jon
Jon Spangler
Writer /editor
Linda Hudson Writing
TEL 510 864 -2144
file: l/C:lDocume and Settingslcc_userlLocal Settings ET \XPgrp 6/4/2010
Page -3 of 3
CEL 510 846 -5356
JonS write r att.net
w ww .lin kedin.com /in
I----- www.twitter.com /jonmspangler
2.12.140 independent committee.
"Independent committee" means a committee which is not controlled either
directly or indirectly by a candidate or controlled committee, and which does not
act jointly with a candidate or controlled committee in connection with the receipt or
solicitation of contributions or the making of expenditures. A committee may be
controlled with respect to one or more candidates and independent with respect to
other candidates. (Ord. 4700 -NS 214, 1974)
2.12.142 independent expenditure.
"Independent expenditure" means an expenditure made by any person in
connection with a communication which expressly advocates the election or defeat
of a clearly identified candidate or the qualification, passage or defeat of a clearly
identified measure, or taken as a whole and in context, unambiguously urges a
particular result in an election but which is not made to or at the behest of the
affected candidate or committee. (Ord. 6096 -NS 2 (part), 1 991)
Jon Spangler
Writer /editor
Linda Hudson Writing
TEL 510 864 -2144
CEL 510 846 -5356
JonSwriter@att. net
w
w jonmspangler
fi1e:HC:'0ocwue Its and Setttiigs\ec user\Locat Settings\ Tei np\XPai pwise14CQ8505A.. lane... 6/4/2010
�13/0/ZU'l u) Lara vveisiger rroposea urainance LImlting Uar gn Uont rlbutions I "I'll., 11.----,--111111-11-111.1
From:
Jeff Mitchell <j.edward.mitchelf@gmail.com>
To:
Lara Weisiger <Iweisiger @ci.alameda.ca.us>
CC:
gretchen Lipow <gretchenIipow @com cast. net>
Date:
6/5/2010 2:08 PM
Subject:
Proposed Ordinance Limiting Campaign Contributions
June 5, 2010
Re: Proposed campaign finance reform ordinance
Dear Mayor Johnson and Members of the City Council:
As a member of the city's Sunshine Task Force I must admit that I was
disappointed that an issue of such import as campaign finance reform
was placed onto your agenda and voted upon without first making any
meaningful attempt to solicit the wider public's opinion on this vital
matter.
Moreover, I believe the current ordinance before you is incomplete and
contains several considerable loopholes.
Respectfully, I ask that the council postpone its second and final
vote on the ordinance until the Sunshine Task Force has the
opportunity to review, study and report back to you its findings and
recommendations for the creation of a basic but comprehensive campaign
finance reform ordinance.
Sincerely,
/s/
Jeff Mitchell
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Lara Weisiger
<Iweisiger a@ci.alameda.ca.us> wrote:
H i Everyone,
Last night, the City Council introduced an ordinance limiting campaign contributions (attached) and wanted to make sure you all
were made aware of it. Final passage will be considered at the June 15 Regular City Council meeting. If you are interested in
commenting on the ordinance, please feel free to pass on written comments to me or of course, you are welcome to attend the
meeting. Thanks!
Lara
Page
Page I of 3
Lara. Weisiger -More comprehensive campaign finance ordinance and
process needed
From:
Jon Spangler <jonswriter @att.net>
To:
Beverly Johnson <bjohnson @ci.alameda.ca.us Doug
deHaan <ddehaan @ci.alameda.ca.us Marie Gilmore
<mgilmore @ci.alameda.ca.us Lena Tam
<ltam @ci.alameda.ca.us Frank Matarrese
<fmatarres @ci, alameda. ca.LlS>
Date:
6/7/2010 10:55 AM
Subject:
More comprehensive campaign finance ordinance and
process needed
CC:
<jott@ci.alameda.ca.us Lara Weisiger
<lweisiger @ci.alameda.ca.us Teresa Highsmith
<THIGHSMI @ci.alameda.ca.us gretchen Lipow
<gretchenlipow @comcast.net Kate Quick-
<k-ate quick@ c omeast. net>, Anne Spanier
<annele ague @comcast.net KAREN BUTTER
<karenbutter @comcast.net>
Attachments:
Campaign Ordinance Fina1622010.pdf 11
Dear Mayor Johnson, Vice -mayor deHaan, members of the City Council,
Sunshine Issue Spotting Task Force Chair Lipow, and members of the staff,
The following comments are my personal views and not necessarily those of
the League of Women Voters of Alameda.
I welcome the Council's interest in campaign finance reform and strongly
encourage your efforts to limit
the influence of money in our political process.
Unfortunately, the issue and the ordinance you initially approved on Tune 1 received far too little public
review or input, especially by the Sunshine Issue Spotting Task Force. As a result, the ordinance (scheduled for final
passage at its second reading on June 15) is inadequate to significantly limit the cost of election campaigns in Alameda.
I strongly support the forthcoming comments and recommendations of the
League of Women Voters of Alameda, especially the inclusion of a voluntary
file: 11C :13ocuments and Settings \cc_userTocai Settiizgs lTeinp\XPgrpwise \4COCD02AA1a... 6/8/201.0
-Page 2, ot3'
expenditures cap based on the number of registered voters that would be
indexed to the local cost of living.
Although independent campaign expenditures cannot be limited following the
Citizens United decision by the U. S. Supreme Court, a voluntary campaign
finance cap could go along way towards malting Alameda campaigns more
reasonable. Unfortunately, such provisions are missing entirely from the
current ordinance.
Please refer the campaign finance ordinance to the Sunshine Task Force for
strengthening and further review.
If your commitment to campaign finance reform is serious -and I have every
reason to believe that it is -the ordinance you pass should also be serious and
more comprehensive than it is now. At the very least it should contain a
significant
voluntary expenditure cap mechanism, as I believe will be proposed and
supported by the League of Women Voters of Alameda and others.
If you are unwilling to refer the current (inadequate) ordinance to the
Sunshine Task Force for review, it is imperative that you amend and
strengthen the current proposed ordinance per the league's recommendations
before final passage. It is critical that the Sunshine Task Force review the
entire topic of campaign finance reform, whether or not an ordinance is
passed for this campaign season.
Please strengthen the campaign finance reform ordinance by adding a strong
voluntary campaign contributions cap based on the number of registered
voters in Alameda. Please ensure that this ordinance and this subject receive
the serious public scrutiny and support that they deserve. That is the best way
to guarantee that Alameda has a successful mechanism for meaningful
campaign finance reform this year.
Please act favorably on the forthcoming recommendations and proposed
amendments from the League of Women Voters of Alameda on June 15.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Respectfully yours,
file: /C:`Documents and Setfings \cc_user` Local Settings\Te iip\XPg pw1se \4COCD02AAla... 6/8/2010
Page 3 of'3
J011
1o„ Span
2060 Encinal Avenue Apt. B
Alameda, CA 94501 -4250
510 -864 -2144
510 -846 -5356 CEL
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Cara Weisiger" <Iweisiger @ci.alameda. ca us> Date: June 2, 2010 3:21:10 PM PDT
To: <j-- onswrite-r
Sub Revised Ordinance
Hi Jon,
Attached is the proposed. ordinance limiting campaign contributions
with the revisions from last night.
Lara
file:HC:IDocu ments and Settingslcc user\Local Set i ngslTemp\XPgrpwisel4COCD02AA a... 6/8/201.0
CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO.
New Series
AMENDING THE AL.AMEDA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING
SECTION 2--71 ELECTION CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS TO
ARTICLE VI. (ELECTIONS) OF CHAPTER 11 ADMINISTRATION
t T EATE O CREATE ENFORCEABLE LIMITS ON ELECTION
CONTRIBUTIONS TO FACILITATE LOCAL CAMPAIGN FINANCE
REFORM AND PROMOTE BROADER AND MORE OPEN CITIZEN
Q. PARTICIPATION IN THE ELECTORAL PROCESS
BE IT ORDAINED by the city Council of the city of Alameda that:
Section 1. The Alameda Municipal Code is amended by adding Section 2-
71 (Election Campaign Contributions) to Article VI, (Elections) of Chapter II
(Administration), which shall read as follows:
2 -71 ELECTION CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS
2 -71.1 Purpose.
Pursuant to the authority granted to the city Council in Government
Code Section 31013 permitting the imposition of additional local
requirements to the Political Reform Act of 1974, the city council
hereby finds that it is in the public interest to place realistic and
enforceable limits on the amounts which may be contrib.uted to
political campaigns in municipal elections, and that candidates and
treasurers of committees aiding such candidates make a full and
fair declaration containing a disclosure of the persons making
contributions, the amounts of such contributions, the persons to
whom expenditures are made, and the amounts of such
expenditures.
In seeking to establish such limitations on campaign contributions,
it is the intent of the city council to promote a broader and more
open participation by all citizens in the electoral process. It is not
intended that such limitations should act to deprive or restrict any
citizen of his rights guaranteed under the First and Fourteenth
Amendments of the United States constitution.
2 -71.2 Definitions.
For the purpose of this section, definitions codified in the Political
Reform Act, beginning at Section 32000 et seq. shall apply, with the
Final Passage of ordinance #5 -G
06-15-10
additions of subsection (c) of this section and the following
additional requirements to subsections (a) and (b) of this section:
(a) ;`campaign statement" means an itemized statement prepared
in duplicate by a candidate and by the treasurer of each
committee, showing, in addition to matters required by law, the
following information:
1. The name, complete mailing address, occupation and
place of employment, and business address if self
employed, of any person who paid, loaned, contributed
or otherwise furnished $100.00 or more, or its
equivalent, to the candidate or treasurer for the
candidate, or to each committee as defined in
subsection (b) of this section, for the use. of such
candidate or such treasurer, directly or. indirectly, in aid
of the candidate's election, or for qualification, passage
g
or defeat of any measure, and the amount, .in detail, of
such money or its equivalent each such person paid,
loaned, contributed or otherwise furnished;
2. The purchase of any tickets cumulatively totaling
$100.00 or more, for any fundraising event, regardless
of number purchased, value of each ticket, or.frequency
of purchase, is subject to the provisions of subsection
(a)( of this section;
3. The donation of $100.00 or more to any "kitty" at the
campaign event is subject to the provisions of
subsection (a )(1) of this section; and
4. All expenditures of $100.00 or more shall be .itemized in
detail, with the amount and names of persons and /or
concerns where the moneys were expended.
(b) "committee" means.
1. A committee, person or group of persons organized for
the purpose or charged with the duty of conducting or
aiding the election campaign, including fundraising
events, or any candidate for municipal office of the city,
or for the support or defeat of a measure under
consideration in the city;
2. Any committee, person or group of persons aiding,
directly or indirectly, any candidate, measure or
committee, as defined in subsection (b of this
section, whether or not originally organized for election
purposes.
(c) "Election period" means:
1. For each general municipal election held in November
every two years to elect, as the case may be, a mayor,
councilmernber, auditor or treasurer, the election period
means the period beginning on January first after the
previous general municipal election for the affected
office and ending on December thirty -first after the next
following (and current) general municipal election for the
affected office.
2. For each special municipal election, held to fill a
vacancy in the office of mayor or councilmernber, the
election period means the period beginning on the day
the vacancy began and ending on the sixtieth day
following the special municipal election. However, for
any candidate in the special election who has
established, prior to the vacancy, a committee for the
election to the affected office of mayor or
councilmember, the election period begins on January
first after the previous general municipal election for the
affected office.
2 -71.3 Contributions Restrictions generally.
(a)
No contribution shall be accepted by any candidate or
committee except during an election period.
(b)
No person or committee shall make or accept any contribution
or contributions (including loans and non monetary) which
exceed the aggregate amount of $250.00 during any election
period.
(c)
Return of Excess Contributions. If the contribution limitation
set forth in subsection (b) of this section is exceeded, the
candidate must, within 15 days after receipt, return to the
contributor the excess amount in monetary value form.
(d)
Limits Applied Separately. The candidate contribution limit of
subsection (b) of this section applies to each person.
Therefore, a husband and wife may each make contributions
up to the specified limit, including contributions made from
shared or community property. When a husband or wife makes
a contribution to a candidate or committee, using a joint
checking account or other instrument, the contribution will apply
to the spouse signing the check.
(e)
Nothing in this section shall limit the amount which a candidate
may contribute to his or her campaign for an elected City office.
(f)
The prohibitions stated in subsection (b) of this section shall
not apply to contributions made or received in support of, or in
opposition to, a ballot measure.
2 -71.4 Filing of verified campaign expenditures statement.
(a) To ensure full disclosure, each committee or its treasurer shall
disclose all expenditures on behalf of the candidate to the
candidate or his or her treasurer not later than one business
day after the expenditure.
(b) Cumulative preliminary campaign statements shall be filed by
the following dates by the candidate and each committee:
1. No later than 40 days prior to the election; this report
closes 45 days prior to the election;
2. No later than 12 days prior to the election; this report
closes 17 days prior to the election;
3. An additional final contributions Recipient Committee
Campaign statement shall be filed with the City Clerk
during regular business hours on the Friday preceding
the election; this report closes at .2:00 p.m. on the date
of filing. This report is in addition to the reports
required to be filed under state law in Government
Code section 84200;
4. The final post election campaign statement will be filed
not later than January 31' of the year followin g the
election in accordance with the provisions of the
Political Reform Act. In the event that .the.date of the
City election changes, the final post election report
shall be filed on a semi annual basis in accordance
with the provisions of the Political Reform Act;
5. Filing must be received by the City Clerk by 5:00 p.m.,
and is not accomplished by depositing in the mail;
8. Each committee supporting or opposing a measure
shall file its expenditure reports in accordance with the
provisions of the Political Reform Act.
(c) Publication of contributions prior to elections. The City shall
publish on its website at least once in the seven days before
each municipal election a list of all persons contributing
$1 00.00 or more to any candidate or committee..in that election
and the amounts of the contributions reported through the filing
deadline for the third pre election statement.
2-71.5 Contractors doing business with the City of Alameda (City),
the Community Improvement Commission (CIC), the Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) or the. Alameda
Housing Authority (AHA) prohibited from rnaking
contributions.
(a) No person who contracts or proposes to contract with the City, CIC,
ARRA or the AHA, who amends or proposes to amend such a
contract with the City, CIC, ARRA or AHA, for any purpose
including but not limited to contracts for the rendition of services, for
the furnishing of any material, supplies, commodities or e
to the City, CIC, ARRA or the AHA, for the selling of any land or
building to the City, CIC, ARRA or the AHA, or for the purchasin g of
any land or building from the City, CIC, ARRA or the AHA,
whenever the value of such transaction would require approval by
the City Council, CIC, ARRA or the AHA, shall make any
contribution to the Mayor, a candidate for Mayor, a City
Councilmember, a candidate for city Council, the city Auditor, a
candidate for city Auditor, city Treasurer, a candidate for city
Treasurer, or committee controlled by such officeholder or
candidate at any time between commencement of negotiations and
either one hundred eighty (180) days after the completion of, or the
termination of, negotiations for such contract.
(b) "Services" means and includes labor services, professional services,
consulting services, or a combination of services and materials,
supplies, commodities and equipment which shall include public
works projects.
(c) For contributions to City officers, transactions that require approval
by the City Council, CIC, ARRA or the AHA include but are not
limited to:
1. contracts, or amendments thereto, for the procurement
of services that are professional or consulting services
exceeding seventy -five thousand dollars ($75,000.00).
2. contracts, or amendments thereto, for the procurement of
services exceeding seventy -five thousand dollars
($75,000.00), other than contracts for professional or
Consulting Services.
8. contracts, or amendments thereto, for the furnishing of
any materials, supplies, commodities or equipment
exceeding twenty -five thousand dollars ($25,040.00).
4. contracts for the sale of any building or land to or from
the city, the CIC, ARRA, or the AHA.
(d) "Commencement of negotiations" for city, CIC, ARRA or AHA
contracts occurs when a contractor or contractor's agent formally
submits a bid, proposal, qualifications or contract amendment to
any elected or appointed city officer or employee or when any
elected or appointed city office or employee formally proposes
submission of a bid, proposal, qualifications or contract amendment
from a contractor or contractor's agent.
(e) "Commencement of negotiations" does not include unsolicited receipt
of proposal or contract information or documents related to them,
requests to be placed on mailing lists or routine inquiries for
information about a particular contract, request for proposal or any
information or documents relating to them or attendance at an
informational meeting.
(f) "completion of negotiations" occurs when the city, CIC, ARRA or
the AHA executes the contract or amendment.
(g) "Termination of negotiations" occurs when the contract or amendment
is not awarded to the contractor or when the contractor files a
written withdrawal from the negotiations, which is accepted by an
appointed or elected city, CIC, ARRA, or AHA officer or employee.
(h) The city Manager shall be responsible for implementing procedures
for the city of Alameda, CIC, ARRA, and AHA contracts to ensure
contractor compliance with this ordinance. A proposed or current
contractor must sign and date the following statement at the time
the contractor formally submits a bid, proposal, qualifications or
contract amendment:
The Alameda Municipal Code limits campaign contributions and prohibits
contributions from any person contracting with the City of Alameda, the CIC, the
ARRA or the AHA during specified time periods. violators are subject to civil and
criminal penalties.
have read Alameda Municipal Code section 2 -71.5, and certify that I /we have
not knowingly, nor will I /we make contributions prohibited thereby.
Business Name
Date
Signature
The signed and dated statement must be received and filed by the City
Clerk at the same time the proposal is submitted. Contracts may not be awarded
to any contractors who have not signed this certification.
(i) A person who contracts with the City, CIC, ARRA or the AHA, for
any purpose, including, but not limited to contracts for the rendition
of services, for the furnishing of any material, supplies,
commodities or equipment to the City, CIC, ARRA, or the AHA, or
for selling any land or building to the City, CIC, ARRA or the AHA or
for purchasing any land or building from the City, CIC, ARRA or the
AHA, whenever the value of such transaction would require
approval by the City Council, the CIC, ARRA or the AHA, and who
violates subsection (a) of this section, shall be subject to the
enforcement provisions of this Section.
Elected City officeholders, candidates for City office and their
controlled committees shall include a notice on all campaign
fundraising materials no less than eight point boldface type, which
shall be in a color or print which contrasts with the background so
as to be easily legible, and in a printed or drawn box and set apart
from any other printed matter. The notice shall consist of the
following statement:
Alameda Municipal Code section 2 -71 limits campaign
contributions by all persons and prohibits contributions
during specified time periods from any person
contracting with the City of Alameda, CIC, ARRA or AHA.
2-71,6 Enforcement —Violations; criminal.
(a) Any person who knowingly or willfully violates any provision of this
Ordinance is guilty of a misdemeanor.
(b) No person convicted of a misdemeanor under this subsection shall
be a candidate for an elected City Council office for a period of four
years following the date of the conviction unless the court at the
time of sentencing specifically determines that this provision shall
not be applicable. A plea of nolo contendere shall be deemed a
conviction for purposes of this subsection.
1. Violation Candidate's office forfeited when. If after his or her
election a candidate receives a final judgment of conviction of a
violation of any provision of this Ordinance, the office of such
candidate shall be forfeited and such office shall become vacant
immediately thereupon, or on the date upon which the candidate, if
he or she is not an incumbent, would otherwise take office.
2. Violation Candidacy terminated when. If a candidate receives
a final judgment of conviction pursuant to this subsection at any
time prior to his or her election, his or her candidacy shall be
terminated immediately and he or she shall be no longer eligible for
election.
(c) In addition to other penalties provided by law, a fine up to the
greater of one thousand dollars ($1000.00) or three times the
amount the person failed to report properly, unlawfully contributed,
gave or received may be imposed upon conviction of each
violation.
(d) Prosecution for a violation of this Ordinance must be commenced
within four years after the date on which the violation occurred.
(e) Whether or not a violation is inadvertent, the presence or absence
of good faith shall be considered in applying the remedies and
sanctions of this subsection.
(f) If two or more persons are responsible for any violation, they shall
be jointly and severally liable.
2 -71.7 Enforcement injunction.
Any person residing in the City may sue for injunctive relief to
enjoin violations or to compel compliance with the provisions of this
Ordinance. The court may, in its discretion, require the plaintiff to
file a complaint with the district attorney prior to seeking injunctive
relief. The court may award to a plaintiff or defendant who prevails
his costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney's fees.
2 -71.8 Enforcement civil liability,,
(a) Any person who violates any provision of this ordinance shall be
liable in a civil action brought by either the district attorney or
independent counsel, appointed by the city Attorney, for an amount
up to one thousand dollars ($1,000) per violation of this section, in
addition to return of contributions received in violation thereof.
(b) No civil action alleging a violation of this section may be filed
against a person pursuant to this section if a criminal prosecution
arising out of the same allegations is pending.
(c) Late filing penalties. Any candidate or committee who files a
campaign statement or report after the deadlines unposed by the
Political Reform Act and by this ordinance shall, in addition to the
penalties enumerated in California Government code Section
01013, be subject to the penalties and /or remedies established
herein /or, by this subsection.
Section 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from the date of
its final passage.
Presiding officer of the city council
Attest:
Lara Weisiger, city clerk
1, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was duly
and regularly adopted and passed by council of the city of Alameda in regular
meeting assembled on the day of 2010 by the
following vote to grit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set nay hand and affixed the
official seal of said city this day of 2010.
Lara Weisiger, city clerk
City of Alameda
COUNCIL REFERRAL FORM
(To be submitted to the City Clerk)
Name of Council member requesting Referral: Frank Matarrese
Date of submission to City Clerk (must be submitted before 5:00 p.m. on the
Monday before the week of the Council meeting requested): June 7, 2010
Requested council Meeting date to consider council Referral: June 1 5, 20 o
Brief description of the subject to be printed on the agenda, sufficient to inform
the city council and public of the nature of the council Referral:
This referral requests the following City council consideration discussion and
action related to addressing parking in impacted residential nei hborhoods
around Alameda High School.
Prop osed Action:
Give direction to the City Mana er to propose a solution to address parkin
In neighborhoods around Alameda High School
Consideration should be given to working with the Youth Commission (see
related Commision action providing ideas for reduci traffic con estion around
high school campuses February 12, 2009).
Other council consideration during the discussion:
Maximize day—ti—me use of the parking structure
Residential parking permit pilot for impacted neighborhoods
Trip reduction efforts to reduce the number of cars associated with AHS
Bud et for this process
Council Referral #8 -A
06-15-10
CURRENT APPLICATIONS
CNIL SERVICE BOARD
ONE VACANCY
(Full term expiring 6/30/14)
Jose Villaflor
Re: Agenda [tern #9 -A
6 -1a -10
CURRENT APPLICATIONS
HOUSING COMMISSION
FOUR VACANCIES
(Three full teens expiring 06/30/14 and
one Tenant seat full tei7n expiring 6/30/12)
Pauline Beck
Tay Pratt, InCLImbent
CURRENT APPLICATIONS
LIBRARY BOARD
ONE VACANCY
(Full term expiring 6/30/14)
Catherine Atkin
Jessica L dsey
Ronald Walker
CURRENT APPLICATIONS
PLANNING BOARD
TWO VACANCIES
(Full terms expiring 6/30/14)
Melanie Braun
Ian CouWenberg
Charlyn Hook
Eric Ibsen
Jol-. Knox White
Kristoffer Koster
Thuy Nguyen
Rodrigo ordun a
Stuart Rickard
Robert Robillard
Hallie VonR.ocl.
Charles Patrick Wallis
CURRENT APPLICATIONS
PUBLIC UTILITES BOARD
ONE VACANCY
(Full team expiring 6/30/14)
Muth .abbe
CURRENT APPLICATIONS
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FIVE VACANCIES
(Two full terms expiring 6/30/14; two terms expiring 6/30/13;
and one AUSD seat partial term expiring 6/30/12)
Brett Allen
John Tallitsch
Philip Tribuzio
W13 I
Council A �d ;te0 by' cTust 20, 2010
c Y CL
Ju 4, 201
TO: Mayors, City Mana (yers and CityClerks
RE: DESIGNATION 0P VOTING DE.L.EGATES AND ALTERNATES
Lleabue Of alif6r nia: hies Annual Conference Septemb 1547.- Saar Diego
The League's 2010 Annual Conference is scheduled for S eptember 15) -17 in San Diego. A
important part. of the Annual Conference is the Annual Business Meeting (at the cl ash General
Assembb v), scheduled for." :00 p.m., Friday September 17, at the San Diego Convention Center.
At this. meeting, the League membership conside and ta ke s acti on re s olutions that establish
League policy.
In order to vote at the Annual .Business Meeting, your city council must designate a voting
delegate. Your city may also appoint up t.o t alte rnate voting delegates. one of nonz may vote
in the event that the designated voting delegate is u to serv in that ca Please tale
care when selecting your city's delegates, as travel and attendance could be an issue for those
who observe Yom Kippur..
Please complete th attached Voting Delecrate forte. and return It t the L eaaue's office
no later than Friday, August 20, 20100 This will allow us time to establish votInCF
delecratef alternates' records prior to the conference.
Please note the following procedures that are intended to ensure the integrity of the voting
process at the Annual Business Meeting.
Action by Council Required. Consistent with League bylaws, a city's voting delegate
and up to two alternates must be designated b�� the city council. when completing the
attached voting Relegate fonn, please attach either a co v of the council resolution that
reflects the council action taken, or have vour city clerk or mayor sign the form affirming
that the names provided are those selected by the city council. Please note that
designating the voting delegate and alternates must be done by city council action and
cannot be accomp shed by individual acti on of th e m a or or city man Lger alone.
Conference registration Required. The voting delegate and alternates must be
registered to attend the conference. They need not register for the entire conference; they
may register for Friday only. In order to cast a vote, at least one person must be present
at the Business Meeting and in possession of the voting delegate card. voting delegates
and alternates need to pick up their conference badges before signing in and picking up
Council Communication #9 13
06 -15 -10
9 m
the voting delegate card at the voting Delegate Desk. This will enable therm to receive
the special sticker on their name badges that will admit therm into the voting area during
the B usiness Meeting.
Transferrina votinb Card to Nora- Designated Individuals Not Allowed. The voting
delegate card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates, but
only between the voting delegate and alternates. If the voting delegate and alternates find
themselves unable to attend the Business Meeting, they may not transfer the voting card
to another city official.
Seating Protocol during General Assembly. At the Business Meetm* g individuals with
the voting card will sit in a separate area. Admission to this area will be limited to those
individuals with a special sticker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate
or alternate. If the voting delegate and alternates wish to sit together they must sign in at
the voting Delegate Desk anal. obtain the special sticker on their badges.
The voting Delegate Desk, located in the conference registration area of the San Jose Convention
Center, will be open at the following times: Wednesday, September 15, 9:00 a.m Thursday,
September 16, 7 :30 a.m.; and September 17, x':30 a.m. The voting Delegate Desk will also be
open at the Business Meeting on Friday, but not during a roll call vote, should one be undertaken.
The voting procedures that will be used at the conference are attached to this memo. Please
share these procedures and this memo with your council and especially with the individuals that
your council designates as your city's voting delegate and alternates.
Once again, thank you for completing the voting delegate and alternate form and returning it to
the League office by Friday, August 20th. If you have questions, please call Mary McCullough
at (916) 655 -8247.
Attachments:
2010 Annual Conference voting Procedures
Voting Delegate/Alternate Form
L
s
-Cl I IE,�
1400 K Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, California 95814
Phone: 910.058.8200 l=ax: 916.658.8240
www.cacities.org
Annual Conference doting Procedures
2010 Annual Conference
One City one Vote. Each member city has a light to cast one vote on matters pertaining to
League policy.
Desi.gnatina a City Voting Representative. Prior to the annual Conference. each city
council may designate a voting delegate and up to two alternates; these individuals are,
identified on the Voting Delegate Folm provided to the League Credentials Committee.
3. Registering with the Credentials Committee. The voting delegate, or alternates, may
pick up the city's voting card at the Voting Delegate Desk in the conference registration
area. Voting delegates and alternates must sign in at the Voting Delegate Desk. Here they
will receive a special sticker on their name badge and thus be admitted to the voting area at
the Business Meeting.
4. Signing Initiated Resolution Petitions. Only those individuals who are voting delegates
(or alternates), and who have picked up their city's voting card by providing a signature to
the Credentials Committee at the Voting Delegate Desk may sign petitions to initiate a
resolution.
S. Voting. To cast the city's vote, a city official must have in his or her possession the city's
voting card and be registered with the Credentials Committee. The voting card may be
transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates, but may not be transferred to
another city official who is neither a voting delegate or alternate.
6. Voting Area at Business Meeting. At the Business Meeting, individuals with a voting card
will sit in a designated area. Admission will be limited to those individuals with a special
sticker on their name badge identifying then. as a voting delegate or alternate.
7. Resolving Disputes. In case of dispute, the Credentials Committee will determine the
validity of signatures on petitioned resolutions and the right of a city official to vote at the
Business Meeting.
LEAGUE
G 0 FO[ NN 1
CITY:
2 010 ANNUAL CONFERENCE
VOTING DELEG..XTE/ALTERNATE FORM
Please complete this form and return it to the Leabue office by Friday, Auaust 20. 20I0.
For ms not sent by this deadline may he submitted to the Voting Desecrate Desk located in
the annual Conference ebistration Area. Four city council may designate one yo �ina
dele (yate a nd R to two alternates
In order to vote at the Ann ual Business Meetiner (General Asse mbly), v otingy delegates and alternates must
be deli an.ated by your city council.. Please attach the council resolution as proof of designation. As an
alternative, the Mayor or City Clerk .may sign this form, affirming that the desi nation reflects the action
taken by the council.
Please note: Voting deleorates and alternates will be seated in a separate area at the Annual Business
Meeting. Admission to this designated area will be limited to individuals (voting delegates and
alternates) who are identified with a special sticker on their conference badge. This sticker can be
obtained only at the Voting Delegate Desk.
I. VOTING DELEGATE
Marne:
Titl
2. VOTING DELEGATE ALTERNATE 3. VOTING DELEGATE ALTERN ATE
Larne: Name:
Title: Title:
PLEASE ATTACH COUNCIL RESOLUTION DESIGNATING VOTING DELEGATE
AND A L T ERNATES
O
ATTEST: I affirm that the information provided reflects action by the city council to
designate the votinb delecFate and alternate(s).
Name: E -mai
Mayor or City Clerk
(circle one)
Date:
(si
Please cony fete and return by Pridav .uaust 2Q to:
League of California Cities
,.T`I`N: Mary McCullough
1400 K Street
Sacramento, CA 9_5814
Phone:
FAX: (916) 658 -8240
E -mail: mccullom@cacities.org
658 -8247
V otin zD e le irate Letter I O .do c
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE ANNUAL ALAMEDA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY MEETING
TUESDAY- -MARCH 16,2010- -6:55 P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the Annual Meetin at 7:30 p.m. Board Member deHaan led
the Pled of Alle
Roll Call Present: Board Members deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam,
and Chair Johnson 5.
Absent: None.
Minutes
Minutes of the Annual APFA Meetin of March 17, 2009. Approved.
Board Member Tam moved approval of the minutes.
Board Member deHaan seconded the motion, which carried b unanimous voice vote
5.
A Items
None
Oral Communications
None
Board Communications
None
Adiournment
There bein no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the Annual Meetin at 7:32
p.m.
Respectfull submitted,
Lara Weisi
Secretar
The a for this meetin was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Annual Meetin
Alameda Public Financin Authorit
March 16, 26 10
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL ALAMEDA P UBLIC
FINANCING AUTHORITY (APFA) MEETING
TUESDAY- -JUNE 1 2010- -7:02 P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the meeting at 10 :50 p.m.
Roll Call Present: Board Members deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam,
and chair Johnson 5.
Absent: None.
Agenda Item
(10- Resolution No. 10 -19, "Amending Resolution 92 -1 Setting Regular Meeting
Dates for Authority Meetings." Adopted.
The Deputy city Manager Administrative Services gave a brief presentation.
Board Member deHaan moved adoption of the resolution.
Board Member Matarrese seconded the motion with an amendment to add July 7 and
September 8, 2010 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority dates to the list of
regular meeting dates.
On the call for the question, the vote carried by unanimous voice vote 5.
Ad ou rn iment
There being no further business, chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 10 :58 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda Public Financing Authority
June 1, 2010
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable chair and the
Members of the Alameda Public Financing Authority Board
From: Ann Marie Gallant
Interim Executive Director
Date: June 15, 2010
Re: Adopt the Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Alameda Public
Financing Authority Authorizing the Issuance of its 2010 Local Agency
Refunding Revenue Bonds (Harbor Bay CFD and Marina Village AD), and
Approving Documents and Authorizinq Actions in connection Therewith
Harbor Bay: community Facilities District No. 1 (Harbor Bay) (CFD 1) comprises 030
single family residential parcels on approximately 123 acres of land. CFD 1 is located
in the mixed -use community of Harbor Bay Isle in the southern portion of the City of
Alameda (the "city CFD 1 is bounded by Shoreline Park and San Francisco Bay on
the crest and north; Island Drive and the Chuck Corica Golf complex on the east; and
Harbor Bay Business Park on the south.
In 1 989, the city issued CFD 1 Special Tax Bonds to finance the acquisition and
construction of various public capital improvements, including grading, street
improvements, landscaping and storm drainage improvements in CFD 1. In 1990 the
City issued special tax refunding bonds (the 1998 Refunding Bonds) in order to refund
the 1989 CFD 1 Special Tax Bonds.
On June 12, 1998 the Alameda Public Financing Authority (APFA) issued $17,035,000
in Local Agency Community Facilities District Revenue Bonds (the 1990 CFD Bonds).
The proceeds were used by the APFA to provide funds to acquire from the city its 1995
Refunding Bonds. The 1990 CFD Bonds are payable solely from special takes
collected from CFD 1 property owners.
Marina Village: Assessment District 89 -1 (Marina Village) (AD 89 -1) comprises 71
commercial and industrial parcels in a 200 -acre master- planned community located in
the northern portion of the City, south of the Oakland Inner Harbor and east of the
Posey and Webster Street tunnels. Marina Village Parkway grinds through AD 89 -1
which includes the Marina Village shopping center.
APFA
Report Re:
Agenda Item #2 =13
Honorable Chair and June 15, 2010
Members of the APFA Board Page 2 of 4
In 1997, the City issued assessment district revenue bonds (the 1997 AD Bonds) to
finance the acquisition and construction of various public infrastructure supporting the
development of AD 89 -1. On January 15, 1999 the City issued $37,585,000 in
Assessment District Revenue Bonds (the 1999 AD Bonds). The proceeds were used to
refinance the 1997 AD Bonds. The 1999 AD Bends are payable solely from
assessment levies collected from the owners of property within AD 89 -1. The
assessment levies are partially offset by annual tax increment credits from the City of
Alameda Community Improvement Commission (the CIC) as outlined in the 1984
Marina village Owner Participation and Cooperation Agreement.
$12,325,000 of the 1998 CFD Bonds and $14,075,000 of the 1999 AD Bonds remain
outstanding (collectively, the Local Obligations). The City's staff and its financing
advisors have determined that due to favorable interest rates in today's bond market, it
is in the best interest of the property owners in both the CFD 1 and the AD 89 -1 to
refund the Local obligations.
DISCUSSION
Staff recommends that refunding revenue bonds be issued through the APFA in an
amount not to exceed $21 million to refund the 1996 CFD and the 1999 AD Bonds. The
APFA Refunding Revenue Bonds will be limited obligations. of. the City payable solely
from special taxes collected from the CFD 1 property owners. and assessment levies
from the AD 89 -1 property owners. It is anticipated that the APFA Refunding Revenue
Bonds will be structured in two series, CFD. loo. 1 series 2010 (the CFD .Refunding
Bonds) and AD 10 -1 series 2010 (the AD Refunding Bonds). The CFD Refunding
Bonds will be issued in an amount not to exceed $11.5 million, and the AD Refunding
Bonds will be issued in an amount not to exceed $9.5 million.
The CFD Refunding Bonds will be structured to provide level annual savings expected
to range from approximately $400 to $700 per special taxpayer. The final maturity on
the CFD Refunding Bonds will be August 1, 2019, which is the same as the final
maturity of the 1995 CFD Bonds.
The AD Refunding Bonds will also be structured to provide level annual savings totaling
approximately $863,000 per year. It is anticipated that the largest taxpayer, Legacy
Partners I Alameda LLC, will receive the majority of the savings. The final maturity on
the AD Refunding Bonds will be September 2, 2014, which is the same as the 1999 AD
Bonds.
The APFA will issue the Refunding Revenue Bonds as fixed rate, uninsured, tax- exempt
bonds with an anticipated Fitch rating of "BBB" and an anticipated standard Poor's
rating of "BBB It is anticipated that the APFA Refunding Revenue Bonds will be
issued by means of a competitive sale method. However, staff maintains the option to
use another method of sale if in the judgment of the City's financial advisors, another
method of sale may produce more positive results. The City's financial advisors will
assist staff is assessing the California revenue bond market at the time of sale to
Honorable Chair and June 15, 2010
Members of the APFA Board Page 3 of 4
determine the appropriateness of the interest rates and other terms of offers received.
The target date for the sale of the APFA Refunding Revenue Bonds is June 23, 2010.
Staff has been working with Sequoia Financial Croup LLC and Westhoff, cone
Holmstedt as the financial advisors and Quint &Thimmig as bond and disclosure
counsel during the structuring of the APFA Refunding Revenue Bonds. As previously
stated, staff is planning to leave underwriting options open at this point in time, with the
expectation that a competitive method of sale may work best for this transaction. Staff,
with assistance from the financial advisors, will pursue the method of sale that yields the
lowest cost of borrowing. other methods under consideration include a limited
negotiated sale or a private placement.
The target date for bond closing is July 15, 2010. This should allow the city sufficient
time to secure the reduced special tax payments and assessment levies on the August
2nd tax rolls in order to provide tax reductions to property owners in FYI 0-11.
The documents to which the APFA is a party related to the refinancing program are on
file in the city clerk's office and include: an Indenture of Trust for the 2010 Refunding
Bonds; an Agreement Regarding Refunding of Authority Bonds which contains the
Community Improvement Commission's obligation to assist with the refinancing; an
Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement relating to the repayment of the 1090 Refunding
Bonds; an Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement relating to. the repayment of the 1 099
AD Bonds; and a Notice of Intention to Sell Bonds, an official notice of Sale and a
Preliminary official Statement relating to the sale of the 2010 Refunding Bonds.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Issuance of the APFA Refunding Revenue Bonds would provide substantial savings to
the property owners in CFD 1 and AD 89 -1. Depending upon lot size, homeowners can
expect annual property tax savings between $400 -$700. Total annual tax savings for
business owners in the marina Village Assessment District will be approximately
$003,000 per year. The city will be reimbursed from bond proceeds for its
administrative costs incurred during the structuring and issuance of the Bonds. A
sources and use of funds (Exhibit 1) and estimated refunding savings (Exhibit 2) provide
a summary of the pertinent financial detail on this transaction.
Honorable chair and
Members of the APFA Board
RECOMMENDATION
,June 15, 2010
Page 4 of 4
Adopt the Resolution authorizing the issuance of the APFA Local Agency Refunding
Revenue Bonds (harbor Bay CFD and Farina Village AD), and approving documents
and authorizing actions in connection therewith.
Respectfully submitted,
Ann Mar' Gallant
Interim ecutive Director
Exhibits:
1. sources and Uses of Funds
2. Estimated Savings
6/8/2010
SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS
:�Iameda PFD.
2010 Refunding
S'otr rce s
Par AMOUIlt
Prior Reserve Fund (1)
Prior Bond Fund CIC Surplus
AD 89 -1 Improvement Fund
Pay Amount of PFA. Bonds
Oriainal Issue Premium (Discount)
Total Source-s of Funds
$538.68 7.37
S 19.780,000.00
n
CFD I*+i o.
r 4 A
S 1 0.780,000 M
1 p'1
1.328,25 7 05
AD 89-
[h LS Z !4
S9,000.000M
3.569.281.9
3.691,643.65
2.725,387.32
Uses
Deposit to Fscrow
Deposit to 2010 Reserve Fund (5)
Deposit to Bond Fund (6)
Nlew A D 89 -1 Improvement Fund
Pzu -chase Local Obligations:
CFD No, 1
AD 89 -1
Subtotal L,oc.at Obllaations
Deposit to Cost of Issuance Fund
Allowance for Underwriter's Discount (7)
Total Uses of Funds
10,780,000.00
n nnn nnn f'n
439.78
!4 ry rt r n n n
S12,752,535.00 3) $14,24),902.50 (4)
1.078.000M 1.98TO10.03
49.73 2.85 3 OM 13.09
`?,7?5.387.3?
Costs of Issmmce Detail
Total
VJ LJ %J [1 1 V J
CFD No.
.47 1 CJ V L.1 t .1 L ""f
AD 89 -1
Citv's Issuance Fee
S75.000.00
S40.8
$34.1 2 5.38
Bond IDisctosure Counsel Q T
100.000.00
54.499.49
45.500.51
Financial Advisor Sequoia. WCI--I
I96.050M
106,846,26
89.203,74
Reassessment Em ineerin(y 'NBS
19.500.00
0.00
19.500.00
Printing O.S.
9.000.00
4M4,95
4,095.05
Trustee
21500.00
1,362.49
1,137.51
Trustee's Counsel
2.500M
1,362.49
1,1 37.51
Escrow Agent
?.500.00
1.362.49
14137.5 t
CUSIP
400.00
218.00
182R00
Debt Statement
900.00
490.50
409.50
Rating Fee S &P
16.000.00
8,719,92
T280.08
Ratincy Fee Fitch
15.000.00
8.17 .9?
6.82 5.0 8
Cc?ntit enc
3 7 .37
4-) 7.37
a.aa
Total Costs of Issuance
5439,787.37
S229,25-150
S210.5,33. 87
1) Balance as of 55,E 12/1 0. Source: City= of Alameda.
Pr*Ctcd balance as of 6, Source: City of Alameda.
From CFD 1: From AD 89 -1: S25 5.5 .8 7
X31 Escrow pays debt se ice c'ue 8771!10 on ALIth0fE V's 1996 Series A Bonds.
Assumes cash funded escrow.
(4' Escrow pays debt service cLle 9:'2 0 on AU1110fIr�V's 1999 Bo11ds.
Assun ;es cash funded escrow.
5 For CFD No. 1, the Requirement egUals 10% of the principal ',11,11ortnt of the Local ObIlgatioll.
moutat at ie a.st sit flic,i 11t to pa bt ser ice. oii the PFA Bonds due 9,
1 10,
(71 Equals 0.5 °.i'O of the Bond amount.
Prcparcd by WYesthoff Cone 1.Iolmstedt
APFA
1
Exhibit to
A Ite.m
06 4.54 0
ESTIMATED SAVINGS
City of Alameda
(CFD No. 1 and AD 89-1)
CFD No. I
Estimated
Annual
.f..r X010 -11 Levy y
S Liarings
1,900 $2,500
$418
$21,501 $3.000
5
$3,001 $3,500
$645
3,.501. 54,100
$-763
Average Savin s
$618
D 89 1
Estimated
Annual
Owner
Savi ngs
Lecracy Pai hers I .Alameda LLC
$516
SRM Marina Investors LLC
109,696
Legacy Parties I Alameda 11 LLC
46,907
Victoria. Marina LfLC
323_5 i
Albertso s
30,597
Oakland Yacht Club
19,601
Lo q�'s Dr la-,s (Joseph Moore TrList)
19,486
Wind River Systems Inc.
13,494
Pacific Marina Hospitality Inc.
12,830
Siska. Robert J.
I I,883
SL =btotal Top Teti $813,09?
Other Property Owners $50,1?4
UFAL 5863,218
6
6/8/2010
SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS
:�Iameda PFD.
2010 Refunding
S'otr rce s
Par AMOUIlt
Prior Reserve Fund (1)
Prior Bond Fund CIC Surplus
AD 89 -1 Improvement Fund
Pay Amount of PFA. Bonds
Oriainal Issue Premium (Discount)
Total Source-s of Funds
$538.68 7.37
S 19.780,000.00
n
CFD I*+i o.
r 4 A
S 1 0.780,000 M
1 p'1
1.328,25 7 05
AD 89-
[h LS Z !4
S9,000.000M
3.569.281.9
3.691,643.65
2.725,387.32
Uses
Deposit to Fscrow
Deposit to 2010 Reserve Fund (5)
Deposit to Bond Fund (6)
Nlew A D 89 -1 Improvement Fund
Pzu -chase Local Obligations:
CFD No, 1
AD 89 -1
Subtotal L,oc.at Obllaations
Deposit to Cost of Issuance Fund
Allowance for Underwriter's Discount (7)
Total Uses of Funds
10,780,000.00
n nnn nnn f'n
439.78
!4 ry rt r n n n
S12,752,535.00 3) $14,24),902.50 (4)
1.078.000M 1.98TO10.03
49.73 2.85 3 OM 13.09
`?,7?5.387.3?
Costs of Issmmce Detail
Total
VJ LJ %J [1 1 V J
CFD No.
.47 1 CJ V L.1 t .1 L ""f
AD 89 -1
Citv's Issuance Fee
S75.000.00
S40.8
$34.1 2 5.38
Bond IDisctosure Counsel Q T
100.000.00
54.499.49
45.500.51
Financial Advisor Sequoia. WCI--I
I96.050M
106,846,26
89.203,74
Reassessment Em ineerin(y 'NBS
19.500.00
0.00
19.500.00
Printing O.S.
9.000.00
4M4,95
4,095.05
Trustee
21500.00
1,362.49
1,137.51
Trustee's Counsel
2.500M
1,362.49
1,1 37.51
Escrow Agent
?.500.00
1.362.49
14137.5 t
CUSIP
400.00
218.00
182R00
Debt Statement
900.00
490.50
409.50
Rating Fee S &P
16.000.00
8,719,92
T280.08
Ratincy Fee Fitch
15.000.00
8.17 .9?
6.82 5.0 8
Cc?ntit enc
3 7 .37
4-) 7.37
a.aa
Total Costs of Issuance
5439,787.37
S229,25-150
S210.5,33. 87
1) Balance as of 55,E 12/1 0. Source: City= of Alameda.
Pr*Ctcd balance as of 6, Source: City of Alameda.
From CFD 1: From AD 89 -1: S25 5.5 .8 7
X31 Escrow pays debt se ice c'ue 8771!10 on ALIth0fE V's 1996 Series A Bonds.
Assumes cash funded escrow.
(4' Escrow pays debt service cLle 9:'2 0 on AU1110fIr�V's 1999 Bo11ds.
Assun ;es cash funded escrow.
5 For CFD No. 1, the Requirement egUals 10% of the principal ',11,11ortnt of the Local ObIlgatioll.
moutat at ie a.st sit flic,i 11t to pa bt ser ice. oii the PFA Bonds due 9,
1 10,
(71 Equals 0.5 °.i'O of the Bond amount.
Prcparcd by WYesthoff Cone 1.Iolmstedt
APFA
1
Exhibit to
A Ite.m
06 4.54 0
ESTIMATED SAVINGS
City of Alameda
(CFD No. 1 and AD 89-1)
CFD No. I
Estimated
Annual
.f..r X010 -11 Levy y
S Liarings
1,900 $2,500
$418
$21,501 $3.000
5
$3,001 $3,500
$645
3,.501. 54,100
$-763
Average Savin s
$618
D 89 1
Estimated
Annual
Owner
Savi ngs
Lecracy Pai hers I .Alameda LLC
$516
SRM Marina Investors LLC
109,696
Legacy Parties I Alameda 11 LLC
46,907
Victoria. Marina LfLC
323_5 i
Albertso s
30,597
Oakland Yacht Club
19,601
Lo q�'s Dr la-,s (Joseph Moore TrList)
19,486
Wind River Systems Inc.
13,494
Pacific Marina Hospitality Inc.
12,830
Siska. Robert J.
I I,883
SL =btotal Top Teti $813,09?
Other Property Owners $50,1?4
UFAL 5863,218
6
ALAMEDA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY RESOLUTION No.
all
D
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE ALAMEDA
PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF ITS
2010 LOCAL AGENCY REFUNDING REVENUE BONDS (HARBOR.BAY CFD
AND MARINA VILLAGE AD), AND APPROVING DOCUMENTS AND
AUTHORIZING ACTIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
WHEREAS, the Alameda Public Financing Authority (the "Authority has
issued its Alameda Public Financing Authority Local Agency Revenue Bonds,
1996 Series A (Community Facilities District No. 1 (Harbor Bad} Refinancing)
(the "1996 Bonds and has assigned to the trustee for the 1996 Bands, as
security for the repayment of the 1996 Bonds, the city of Alameda Community
Facilities District No. 1 (Harbor Bay) 1996 Special Tax Refunding Bonds (the
"Prior CFD Bonds and
WHEREAS, the Prior CFD Bonds are payable from special taxed (the
"Special Taxes levied on property in the city of Alameda (the "City
Community Facilities District No. 1 (Harbor Bay) (the "CFD and..the..1996
Bonds are payable from payments by the city on the Prior CFD Bonds; and
WHEREAS, the Authority also has issued its Alameda Public Financing
Authority 1999 Revenue Bonds (1997 Revenue Bond Refinancing) (the 1 1 1999
Bonds and has used a portion of the proceeds of the 1999 Bands to acquire
the Limited obligation Improvement Bonds, city of Alameda, Marina Village
Assessment District 89 -1, Series 89 -1 (the "Prior Assessment Bonds" and
WHEREAS, the Prior Assessment Bonds are payable from special
assessments (the "Assessments levied on property in the. City's Marina
Village Assessment District No. 89 -1 (the "Assessment District and the 1999
Bonds are payable from payments by the city on the Prior Assessment Bands;
and
WHEREAS, the city council has authorized the issuance of its city of
Alameda Community Facilities District No. 1 (Harbor Bay) 2010 Special Tax
Refunding Bonds (the "2010 CFD Bonds to refund the outstanding Prior CFD
Bonds and thereby refund the outstanding 1996 Bonds; and
WHEREAS, the city Council has undertaken proceedings to form the
City of Alameda Marina Village Reassessment District No. 10 -1 (the
=Reassessment District and the levy of reassessments in the Reassessment
District to supercede and supplant the unpaid Assessments, and has
authorized the issuance of Limited Obligation Improvement Refunding Bonds,
City of Alameda Marina Village Reassessment District No. 10 -1 (the "2010
Reassessment Bonds to refund the outstanding Prior Assessment Bonds and
thereby refund the outstanding 1999 Bonds; and
Resolution 2 -B
APFA
06 -15 -1d
WHEREAS, the Authority now desires to authorize the issuance of its
Alameda Public Financing Authority 2010 Local Agency Refunding Revenue
Bonds (Harbor Bay CFD and Marina Village AD) (the "Authority Bonds
pursuant to the provisions of Articles 10 and 11 of Chapter 3 of Part 1 of
Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government code of the State of California (the
"Refunding Lava and the Marks -Roos Local Bond Pooling Act of 1985, being
Article 4 of Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the. Government Code of the
State of California (the "Bond Law in an aggregate principal amount not to
exceed $21,000,000, in order to purchase the 2010 CFD Bonds and the 2010
Reassessment Bonds and thereby provide funds to refund and defease the
Prior CFD Bonds and the 1990 Bonds, and the Prior Assessment Bonds and
the 1999 Bonds, and thereby resulting in reduced future special tax. levies on
property in the CFD and reassessment levies on property in the Reassessment
District that will be lower than the current Assessment levies on such property;
and
WHEREAS, there are on file with the Secretary to the Authority an
Indenture of Trust .(the "Indenture authorizing the issuance..of .the Authority
Bonds, a Notice of Intention to Sell Bonds. (the "Notice of Intention and an
Official Notice of sale (the "official Notice of Sale with respect to a
competitive sale of the Authority Bonds, a Preliminary Official..Statem.Qnt (the
"Preliminary official Statement which describes the terns ..of the. Authority
Bonds, a continuing Disclosure Agreement (the "Continuing Disclosure
Agreement providing for periodic disclosure by the Authority to investors. inthe.
Authority Bonds of information related thereto., an Escrow Deposit and Trust
Agreement providing for the refunding of the Prior CFD Bonds and the. 1.996
Bonds (the "1996 Escrow Agreement an Escrow Deposit and Trust
Agreement providing for. the refunding of the Prior Assessment Bonds and the
1999 Bonds (the "1999 Escrow Agreement and an Agreement Regarding
Refunding of Authority Bonds (the =Refunding Agreement and
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors, with the assistance of city Staff,
have reviewed said documents and has found as a result. of such review, and
hereby finds and determines, that all things, conditions and acts required by law
to exist, happen and/or be performed precedent to and in the issuance of the
Authority Bonds do exist, have happened and have been performed in due
time, form and manner as required .by applicable law, and the Authority is now
authorized under the Indenture, the Refunding Law and the Bond Law. and
each and every requirement of applicable law to issue the Authority in
the manner and form provided in this Indenture; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors now desires to authorize the
issuance of the Authority Bonds pursuant to the Refunding Law, the Bond Law
and the Indenture for the purpose of providing funds to refund and defease the
Prior CFD Bonds, the 1990 Bonds, the Prior Assessment Bonds and the 1999
Bonds.
-2-
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE ALAMEDA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY as
follows:
Section 1. Each of the above recitals is true and correct. Pursuant to
the Bond Law, the Board of Directors hereby finds and determines that the
issuance of the Authority Bonds will result in savings in effective interest rates,
bond underwriting costs and bond issuance costs and thereby result in
significant public benefits to its members within the contemplation of Section
6686 of the Bond Law.
Section 2. The Board of Directors hereby authorizes the issuance of
the Authority Bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed
$21 066, 666. The terms of the Authority Bonds shall be as set forth in the
Indenture, as executed and delivered by the Authority.
The Indenture, in the form on file with the Secretary, is hereby approved
and the Executive Director of the Authority is hereby authorized and. directed to
execute the Indenture in such form, together with such additions thereto and
changes therein as the Executive Director, upon consultation with Bond
Counsel and the City Attorney, deems necessary or desirable. Approval. of
such changes shall be conclusively evidenced by the execution and delivery of
the Indenture by the Authority.
Section? 3. The Authority Bonds shall be executed on behalf of the
Authority by the manual or facsimile signature of the Chair or the Executive
Director of the Authority, and attested with the manual or facsimile signature of
the Secretary. Union Bank, N.A. is hereby appointed to act as the .trustee for
the Authority Bonds under the terms of the Indenture.
Section 4. The Notice of Intention and the official Notice of..Sale, in
the respective forms on file with -the Secretary, are hereby..approved. The
terms and conditions of the offering and sale of the Authority Bonds shall be as
specified in the official Notice of Sale in the form hereby approved, together
with such additions thereto and changes therein as shall be approved by the
Executive Director following consultation with the Authority's Co- Financial
Advisors, the City Attorney and Bond Counsel, with the approval of such
additions or changes to be conclusively evidenced .by the dissemination of the
Official Notice of Sale by the Authority to prospective purchasers of the
Authority Bonds.
The Secretary of the Authority is hereby authorized and directed to
cause to be published, once at least five (6) days prior to the date to receive
bids for the Authority Bonds, the Notice of Intention in The Bond Buyer, a
financial publication reasonably expected to be disseminated among
prospective bidders for the Authority Bonds.
-3-
The secretary and the Co- Financial Advisors to the Authority are hereby
authorized to cause to be furnished to prospective bidders a reasonable
number of copies of the official Notice of Sale. The Co- Financial Advisors are
hereby authorized and directed, on behalf of the Authority, to receive the.bids at
the time and place specified in the official Notice of Sale, to examine said bids
for compliance with the official Notice of sale and to verify the bid .with the
lowest true interest cost as provided in the official Notice of sale. I n .the event
two or more bids setting forth identical true interest cost are received, the Co-
Financial Advisors, on behalf of the Authority, may exercise their discretion a.nd
judgment in making the award and may award the Bonds on a pro. rata basis in
such denominations as they shall determine. The Co- Financial Advisors, on
behalf of the Authority, may, in their discretion, reject any and all bids. and
waive any irregularity or informality in any bid. The Co- Financial Advisors, on
behalf of the Authority, shall award the Authority Bonds or reject. all bids not
later than 24 hours after the expiration of the time prescribed for the receipt of
bids unless such time of award is waived by the successful bidder.
In the event that all bids are rejected, the. Executive Director is hereby
authorized to negotiate the sale of the Authority Bonds with. one or more
purchasers to be determined by the Executive. Director upon consultation with
the Co- Financial Advisors to the Authority, and to sell the. Authority Bonds on
such terms and conditions as shall be determined by the Executive Director
upon consultation with the Co- Financial Advisors to the Authority.
Section 5. The Preliminary official: statement for the Authority. Bonds,
in the form on file with the secretary, is hereby approved .and distribution .o.f the
Preliminary official statement to prospective purchasers of the Authority Bonds
in such form, together with .such additions thereto and charges therein as are
determined necessary or desirable by the Executive Director of .the. Authority,
upon consultation with the City Attorney and Disclosure Counsel, to. make. such
Preliminary official Statement .final as of its .date for purposes of Rule 15c2 -.12
of the securities and Exchange Commission is hereby authorized.. The
Executive Director of the Authority is hereby authorized to execute a final
Official statement in the form of the Preliminary Official Statement, together
with such changes as are, determined necessary by the Executive Director,
upon consultation with the city Attorney and Disclosure Counsel, .to make the
Official Statement complete and accurate as of its .date. The distribution of the
final official statement for the Authority Bonds and any supplement thereto to
the purchasers of the Authority Bonds following its execution by the Authority is
hereby authorized.
Section 6. The continuing Disclosure Agreement, the 19.96 Escrow
Agreement, the 1999 Escrow Agreement and the Refunding Agreement, in the
respective forms on file with the Secretary, are hereby approved. and the
Executive Director is hereby authorized and directed to execute such
documents in the forms hereby approved, with such additions therein and
changes thereto as the Executive Director, upon consultation with the city
Attorney and Bond counsel, deems necessary or desirable, with such approval
M
to be conclusively evidenced by the execution and delivery of such documents
by the Authority. The purchase of the 2010 CFD Bonds and the 2010
Reassessment Bonds with proceeds of the Authority Bonds, as contemplated
by the Purchase contract, the Indenture and the Refunding Agreement is
hereby authorized.
Section 7. The Executive Director is authorized to provide for all
services necessary to effect the issuance of the Authority Bonds. Such
services shall include, but not be limited to, printing the Authority Bonds,
obtaining legal services, paying agent services and any other services deemed
appropriate. The Executive Director, or her written designee, is authorized to
pay for the cost of such services, together with other costs of Issuance (as
defined in the Indenture), with amounts deposited to the costs of Issuance
Fund established pursuant to the Indenture.
Section 8. The chair, vice Chair, Secretary, Executive Director and
Treasurer of the Authority and any other officers or staff of the Authority are
hereby authorized and directed to take any actions and execute .and deliver any
and all documents as are necessary to accomplish the issuance, sale. and
delivery of the Authority Bonds, the purchase of the 2010 CFD. Bonds and the
2010 Reassessment Bonds with proceeds of the Authority Bonds, and. the
refunding and defeasance of the 1990 Bonds and the 1999 Binds in
accordance with the provisions of this Resolution. In the. event. that the
Executive Director of the Authority is unavailable to sign any document
authorized for execution herein, the written designee of the Executive Director
may sign such document.
Section 9. The law firm of Quint Thimmig LLP is hereby designated
as Bond counsel and Disclosure counsel to the Authority with respect to the
Authority Bonds. The city Attorney, in her capacity as General Counsel to the
Authority, is hereby authorized to execute an agreement with said firm for its
services as Bond counsel and Disclosure counsel, said agreement to be in a
form acceptable to the city Attorney.
Section 10. The firm of Sequoia Financial Group LLC is hereby
designated as Financial Advisor to the Authority with respect to the Authority
Bonds. The Executive Director is hereby authorized to enter into an agreement
with said firm for its services as Financial Advisor, said agreement to be in a
form acceptable to the Executive Director.
Section 11. This Resolution shall take effect upon its adoption by the
Board of Directors.
-5-
1, the undersigned secretary of the Alameda Public Financing Authority,
hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of a resolution
duly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Authority at a regular meeting
thereof on the 15 day of June, 2010, by the following vote of the members
thereof:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set ra hand and affixed the
official seal of said Authority this 16th day of June, 2010.
Secretary
Alameda Public Financing
Authority
M
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA) AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING
TUESDAY- -JUNE 1 2010- -7:01 P.M.
Mayor /Chair Johnson convened the meeting at 7:27 p.m.
ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembersl Board Members/ Commissioners
del -laan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tarn, and Mayor /Chair
Johnson.
Absent: None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the
Consent Calendar.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Tam seconded the motion, which carried
by unanimous voice vote 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk
preceding the paragraph number.]
*10- CC/ARRA/10- CIC Minutes of the Special ARRA Meeting on May 0, 2010 and
the Special Joint City Council, ARRA and CIC Meeting Feld on May 18, 2010.
Approved.
*ARRA11 0- CIC Recommendation to Award a Five -Year Contract for Professional
Audit Services for the Community Improvement Commission and the Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority for Fiscal Years Ending June 30, 2010 through June 30,
2014 to Caporicci Larson. Accepted.
*ARRA Recommendation to Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease for
Dreyfuss Capital Partners, Building 29, at Alameda Point. Accepted.
*ARRA) Recommendation to Authorize Approval of a Sublease for Point Source
Power, Building 7, at Alameda Point. Accepted.
CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATION
10- CC /ARRA /10- CIC Semimonthly Update on SunCal Negotiations
The Deputy City Manager Development Services provided a handout and gave a brief
presentation.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June 1 2010
CouncilmemberlBoard Member /Commissioner Tans inquired whether the City has
received any indication from the Navy regarding whether the Navy would convey the
land in phases and whether the issue would be related to funding issues.
The Deputy City Manager Development services responded the City has made some
assumptions as to what the Navy would do; detailed conversations have not taken
place; the Navy is motivated to convey the land.
CouncilmemberlBoard Member /Commissioner Tam inquired what assumptions the City
would like to see with respect to phasing.
The Deputy City Manager Development Services responded a couple issues in
Phases I and 2 need to be resolved; stated Phases 3, 4, and 5 do not have Significant
issues; in general, the news is good.
In response to CouncilmemberlBoard Member /Commissioner Tam's inquiry, the Deputy
City Manager Development Services responded the pro forma assumes that the land
would be taken down in 2012, with pads being sold in 2014 which is consistent with the
clean up schedule, except for a couple of exceptions in Phases 1 and 2.
CouncilmemberlBoard Member /Commissioner Tara inquired whether the City assumes
that the Navy would want funding all at once when Phase 1 is completed and conveyed.
The Deputy City Manager Development Services responded land payments have
been discussed; stated payment timing has not been discussed.
CouncilmemberlBoard Member /Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether staff has
discussed money with the Navy and how and when the Navy wants to be paid.
The Deputy City Manager Development Services responded staff has talked to the
Navy regarding the Measure B plan; stated the Navy did not follow up after the initiative
failed; the Navy stated that it has subsequent questions; conversations focused on
SunCal's ability to guarantee payments; the Navy has questions regarding whether
payments would be deferred, whether SunCal and D.B. Shaw .would be capable of
making payments, and what assurances the Navy would have regarding secured
payments.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether the Navy has
indicated whether it would be interested in some number other than the $108.5 million.
The Deputy City Manager Development Services responded in the negative; stated
SunCal has made statements to the Navy regarding willingness to pay what is shown in
the project pro forma; terms are not clear; the Navy will not have conversations with
SunCal until the City okays the discussion.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and 2
Community Improvement Commission
June 1, 2010
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether the Navy has
indicated that it is not resistant to being paid over time.
The Deputy City Manager Development Services responded the Navy prefers up front
payment and is willing to consider back end participation because of the Defense
Authorization Bill passed last October; the Navy's concern is how it knows it would be
paid.
Councilmernber /Board Member /Commissioner deHaan stated ARRA and SunCal have
pledged openness; inquired whether the Navy has signed onto openness.
The Deputy City Manager Development services responded the Navy is a public
agency; stated that she will ask the Navy about the matter.
Cou ncilmember /Board Member /Commissioner deHaan stated the threshold for 1,100
individual homes was $666,000 per home; the Navy has not asked for more than
$1 08.5 million with additional homes.
The Deputy City Manager Development services stated to date, the Navy has not
asked for more than $108.5 million but has not stated that it is Milling to accept $108.5
million; the $108.5 million does not include Phases 4 and 5.
Councllrnember /Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the proposal Includes the
northern territory.
The Deputy City Manager Development Services stated details have not been worked
out.
Mayor /Chair Johnson stated that she recalls that the Navy bases its number on a land
value formula.
The Deputy City Manager Development Services stated the Navy hires an economic
consultant; the consultant looks at the pro forma; $1 08.5 million is for the 1 ,800
Preliminary Development Concept (PDC) project; market changes have been
significant.
Stan Braun, SunCal, stated confusion has involved the application versus the density
bonus option plan; SunCal believes addressing issues on the application is appropriate;
SunCal has expressed a desire to move toward a transit oriented plan; SunCal will
continue to be responsive to questions throughout the eighteen -month to two -year
process to complete the Environmental Impact Report; SunCal does not want to
confuse openness with what is in the letter.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and 8
Community Improvement Commission
June 1, 2010
AGENDA ITEMS
10- CIC) Public Dearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution Approving and Adopting
the Five -Year Implementation Plan for the Business and Waterfront and vilest End
Community Improvement Projects for Fiscal Year 2009 through 2010 and Fiscal Year
2013 through 2014. Continued to June 15, 2010.
(10- CC /ARRA /10- CIC) Recommendation to: (1) Direct Planning Board to Provide
Advisory Recommendation on SunCal Modified Optional Entitlement Application at June
21 2010 Meeting, and (2) Set Public Hearing for Decision on SunCal Modified Optional
Entitlement Application and /or Extension of the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement from
Governing Bodies of Alameda by July 20, 2010.
The Deputy City Manager Development Services gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether milestone
documents would be public upon submission, to which the Deputy City Manager
Development Services responded in the affirmative.
Speakers: Jean Sweeney, Alameda; Jim Sweeney, Alameda; Jon Spangler, Alameda;
William Smith, Alameda.
Stan Brown, SunCal, gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Tarn stated the question is whether there
would be sufficient funding to pay for public amenities and community benefits
envisioned in the Master Plan; the answer is yes as demonstrated by two Economic
Planning Systems (EPS) pro formas delivered to the City n April 8th and April 26 the
y p p
density bonus option pro forma was sent to the Deputy City Manager Development
Services on April 26, 2010; inquired whether the pro forma was incorporated in the staff
report.
The Deputy City Manager Development Services responded the pro forma is an
attachment to tonight's staff report,
Councilmember /Board Member/Commissioner Tara inquired why staff has a different.
conclusion than SunCal regarding the density bonus option pro forma relating to
payment of public amenities.
The Deputy City Manager Development Services responded SunCal was responding
to the April 20th letter; stated comments are now being reviewed on the letter sent six
weeks ago; the City did not have the density bonus pro forma at the time the April 20th
letter was Sent.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and 4
Community Improvement Commission
June 1, 2010
CouncilmemberlBoard Member /Commissioner Tam stated the staff report seems to be
contradictory to the Statement that there would be sufficient funds to pay for public
amenities and community benefits.
The Deputy City Manager Development Services stated staff believes the assumptions
are overly aggressive and questions whether the project could support the public
benefits and transportation improvements; staff has come to a different conclusion than
SunCal.
CouncilmemberlBoard Member /Commissioner Tam stated that Mr. Brown has stated
that there are inconsistencies in the staff analysis of EPS projections; inquired whether
staff still has the same conclusions.
The Deputy City Manager Development Services responded in the affirmative, Stated
staff has discussed the issues with SunCal; that she would be happy to have EPS
discuss the analysis; the big picture is that there are five to seven key assumptions that
significantly affect the bottom line of the pro forma; SunCal's assumption are overly
optimistic.
CouncilmemberlBoard Member /Commissioner Tam stated that she does not
understand why SunCal's assumptions are considered overly optimistic in light of the
requirements for having a project labor agreement and information on builder cost
surveys that occurred in May, 2010.
Jim Musbach, EPS, Stated EPS has been reviewing the pro forma; an independent
market analysis was performed; all [SunCal] assumptions skew towards the optimistic;
returns are overstated and project risk is understated; SunCal's analysis is inconsistent
and is intended to paint a picture that is not supported by evidence; assuming 450 units
per year versus 350 units would have a significant impact on the Internal Rate of Return
(IRR); SunCal does not defend the suitability of the 14.7% IRR under the Measure A
compliant project; funding public amenities and community benefits has risks; EPS
calculated a premium of 22% for the area; the calculated premium would be less by
starting with just single family homes; the land values keep escalating and is a red flag
and far beyond other projects; improved land values as a percentage of unit prices
range from 5% to 25 SunCal's land values are over 50% of unit value; SunCal ends
up with 2% appreciation compounded year after year which all falls to the land value
which means there is no escalation in construction costs and the land captures all of the
value on the upside, which is not true; EPS does not see $1 million dollar houses being
built for $105 per square foot; there is no evidence in today's market that land values
are $2.5 million to $7.7 million per acre; comps suggest between $2 million and $5
million; EPS requested information that would substantiate land prices as a percent of
unit prices; SunCal provide one comp from southern California; EPS believes the
combination of assumptions is overly optimistic.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and 5
Community Improvement Commission
June 2010
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Matarrese requested clarification on Mr.
Brown's comments regarding EPS's assumption of $800,000 for a small house versus
$1.1 million house.
Mr. Musbach stated that he cannot make sense of the issue; SunCal concludes that
figures are lower than EPS by applying the average pricing across all product types,
which is not legitimate.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Matarrese stated that he needs an
answer regarding whether or not numbers are real; back calculating the cost per square
foot of an $860,000 house results in a $1.4 million house instead of a $1 million house;
requested clarification of the matter.
The Deputy City Manager Development Services responded a more detailed analysis
would be provided.
Mr. Musbach stated per square foot costs obscure house size and quality differences;
bigger houses will have lower per square foot prices.
Councilmember /Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated the project would never
pencil out by looking at just single family homes; the Measure A compliant plan would
not be financially feasible because it would not support the level of public amenities
called for in the Master Plan; the Master Plan calculations were across all different
housing types.
Mr. Musbach stated EPS took all homes prices in Alameda and looked at that relative to
Bayport; Bayport homes command a premium of 22 EPS could have started with a
single- family home and ended up with a smaller differential premium of 10% or 15
EPS forecasted home prices in Alameda as a whole and then applied the premium to
get an estimate of what the cost for ghat single- family homes are for Alameda;
SunCal's argument is that since EPS Started with a number for all housing that is for
sale, then EPS should compare that price to SunCal's average price across all product
types in the project, which includes townhouses and condominiums, which drops
SunCal's average price way down.
The Deputy City Manager Development Services stated the Bayport premium relates
to the fact that it is new construction and predominately single family homes.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Tam stated EPS is stating that Bayport
homes are currently listed for $375 per square foot; the assumption in the Optional
Entitlement Agreement (OEA) is $360 per square foot.
Mr. Musbach stated that he cannot follow the numbers; the comparison is not apples to
apples but is a trick to change the average number which is not accurate.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and 0
Community Improvement Commission
June 1, 2010
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner deHaan stated that he received the
information [SunCal's Power Point] at 3.30 p.m. via email; things seem to be premature;
SunCal and EPS need to sit down and have a discussion on the matter; EPS has
worked with the City for thirteen years; neither SunCal or EPS understand what the City
is going through; EPS should review issues and respond; tonight is not the time and
place for discussion; the Power Point presentation is difficult to see; the pro forma has
many other issues.
Councilrnember /Board Member /Commissioner Gilmore stated that she is thoroughly
confused; requested an apple to apple comparison for single- family homes and
townhouses, stated that she wants SunCal and EPS to start at the same spot; if both
parties end up in a different place, she wants to know where and why in plain English.
Councilmember /Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the pro forma shows
an I RR of 19% to 25 the project would be spread over twenty years; inquired what
PERS hopes to get on investments, to which the Deputy City Manager Administrative
Services responded 7.75
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the IRR is not an
acceptable level.
Mayor /Chair Johnson state there have been discussions regarding conservative or
aggressive assumptions; the real discussion is what would happen if there are not
enough funds to pay for public improvements; questioned whether there would be
enough money to pay for transportation solutions for 4,800 housing units and 4.5 million
square feet of commercial development; said discussions are critical for a successful
outcome; understanding the transit oriented nature of the development is important;
having enough money to pay for transit solutions is critical.
Mr. Musbach stated the issue is how to secure that the risk is appropriate.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner deHaan stated reverse engineering
seems to be taking place; the project is totally different than the 1,700 housing unit
project; understanding what is really sustainable is important; 4,800 housing units is
hard to put into prospective.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Gilmore stated the key to any
development at Alameda Point is transit and traffic; the project will not be successful
without transit and traffic solutions; job one is paying for transit solutions; the project will
not be successful if there is not enough money to pay for transit solutions.
Councilmember /Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the first
recommendation in the staff report is to direct the Planning Board to provide an advisory
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and 7
Community Improvement Commission
June 1, 2010
recommendation on the OEA; that he has no faith that any amount of money would
solve the issue of getting people who are in the 4,800 housing units on and off the
island; having the Planning Board provide an advisory recommendation is important;
financing can be reviewed in parallel because financing needs to be based on the
project.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether staff is
assuming that SunCal would provide a complete application by the Planning Board
meeting, to which the Deputy City Manager Development Services responded in the
negative.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Gilmore stated generally, the Planning
Board provides a recommendation to Council based on a complete application; a work
session or scoping session would take place if an application is incomplete; a formal
vote would not be taken; a policy determination would be needed without a formal
application; making a policy determination is the Council's job.
The Deputy City Manager Development Services stated the application on file is not
deemed complete yet; the matter is an advisory recommendation.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Tam inquired ghat the Planning Board
would be reviewing if the application is incomplete.
The Planning Services Manager responded the application includes a General Plan
amendment and rezoning for the property; stated Council cannot take action on
entitlement without an advisory recommendation from the Planning Board; Council's
action would be to either deny or not deny the request and let the process continue;
staff wanted to provide Council with the option of extending or not extending the
Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) or not given the tirnefrarr e of the ENA; staff
thought it was important to get advice from the Planning Board before the hearing;
having a completed application is not required in order to get the Planning Board's
advice.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether a Planning
Board recommendation is required for General Plan amendments or rezoning, to which
the Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilrmember/Board Member /Commissioner Gilmore stated a determination cannot
be made without a completed application.
The City Attorney stated Planning Board action is required to approve a General Plan
amendment or rezoning; action cannot be taken until an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) is completed; the application does not have to go to the Planning Board; however,
going to the Planning Board affords another opportunity for community comment and
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and 8
Community Improvement Commission
June 1, 2010
Planning Board input.
CouncilmemberlBoard Member /Commissioner deHaan stated that he understands that
the Planning Board has not been provided with all the information; the Planning Board
does not understand the total scope of the project; that he questions the need to go
back to the Planning Board; too much information is missing.
The Planning services Manager stated the matter is Council's call since there is no
legal requirement for the application to go to the Planning Board.
CouncilmemberlBoard Member /Commissioner Tam stated circling the matter back to
the Planning Board may not have any value; that she does not feel there is enough
financial information; she does not want to impose the issue on the Planning Board until
financial information comes back in a more coherent form.
The Planning services Manager stated the intention would not be to bring all the
economics back to the Planning Board; the Planning Board would be focusing on
planning issues.
CouncilrnernberlBoard Member /Commissioner Matarrese stated recommendations on
land use and transportation plans would be valuable.
The Deputy City Manager Development services stated the Planning Board has some
of the same questions regarding financial assurances.
Mayor /Chair Johnson stated the project might be starting out to big and maybe the EIR
should be smaller; housing units and commercial square footage could be increased if
the EIR shows that more capacity would be doable.
CouncilmemberlBoard Member /Commissioner Gilmore stated the Planning Board was
looking to Council for guidance; that she thinks the process is backwards.
Mayor /Chair Johnson stated that she does not have a strong opinion either way; the
advantage would be to provide an opportunity for public input.
CouncilmemberlBoard Member /Commissioner deHaan stated study after study has
been done on transportation issues; today's traffic mitigations discussions are the same
as three years ago but the project has increased three fold.
CouncilmemberlBoard Member /Commissioner Tam stated that she does not recall PDC
information on the WRT Solomon Transportation study; inquired whether 1 ,700 homes
would generate revenue to pay for transit solutions.
CouncilmemberlBoard Member /Commissioner deHaan responded the issue is
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and g
Community improvement Commission
June 1 2010
extremely questionable; stated more public amenities would be needed for more
homes.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Tara stated that she thought the whole
concept is to have people bike or walk to neighborhood amenities.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner deHaan stated a transit oriented plan
was used in the community use plan; the transit oriented community in the community
use plan and the PDC were almost parallel; nothing has changed; building more homes
is not the answer to transit solutions; Treasure Island is the king of less auto usage;
Treasure Island residents use 1.8 autos per home.
Council mernber /Board Member /Commissioner Tam inquired what assumptions were
made with respect to the ferry; stated the Alameda Point ferry terminal seems to be
doing well and has an over 40% fare box recovery ratio.
Councilmember/Board Member /Commissioner d 'eHaan responded Oakland contributes
more of the ridership than Alameda; Oakland would lose its ferry service if the ferry was
moved to the lagoon; inquired what is Oakland's fare box recovery ratio.
The Public works Director responded the Alameda /Oakland Ferry Service fare box
recovery ratio is approximately 58 stated the Oakland connection helps Alameda raid
day because of Oakland excursion riders; staff has a meeting on Thursday with the
Water Emergency Transit Authority (WETA); WETA is wondering ghat will happen to
the fare box recovery ratio and whether the ferry service would be viable if it is
bifurcated from the Oakland connection and located at the seaplane lagoon.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner deHaan stated the northeast corner
lagoon location is a concern; the vessel would have to traverse the whole lagoon, which
would take five minutes; the PDC relocated the ferry to one of the piers which changes
having transit within a quarter mile of density.
The Public works Director stated the matter was discussed at meetings [with SunCall;
the travel time through the seaplane lagoon would be approximately seven minutes
each way; WETA's Interim operating Plan (10P) originally envisioned interlinking with
the Harbor Bay Ferry Service; currently, the Harbor Bay Ferry Service travel time is 23
minutes, which would increase to 40 to 44 minutes due to the seaplane lagoon location.
Councilmember /Board Member/Commissioner Tara stated there has to be some type of
development at Alameda Point in order to create a more robust ferry system; otherwise,
there would not be any ridership; inquired what is the threshold to obtain new ridership,
to which the Public works Director responded a ten minute walk.
In response to Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Tam's inquiry, the Public
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and 10
Community Improvement Commission
June 1, 2010
Works Director responded SunCal has not provided ridership estimates; the developer
normally provides the information.
Councilmernber /Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the last study showed
that 24% of Alarnedans go to San Francisco; thoughts are that every ferry would move
all masses to San Francisco, which is not the case.
The Public Works Director stated SunCal is proposing that more people would commute
to San Francisco because SunCal's product would be more appealing to people who
work in San Francisco; the ferry is only one part of the transportation proposal; the bus
rapid transit would be in the later phase.
Councilrr ember/Board Member /Commissioner deHaan stated the PDC included the bus
rapid transit; denser areas would provide an opportunity for more ridership; requested
that all information be brought back; stated that he has not seen anything new.
The Public Works Director stated the City developed a preliminary traffic analysis for
Measure B; the PDC did not have any traffic analysis but had ideas to sustain a transit
oriented development; level of service analyses were not done; the first time a level of
service analysis was done was in the Election Report and was very preliminary.
The Deputy City Manager Development Services stated a lot of new studies have not
been conducted in the last three years; the issue would be addressed with SunCal at
Thursday's meeting; said discussion could be brought back at the next meeting.
Councilmernber /Board Member /Commissioner Gilmore stated there still seems to be an
issue regarding where the ferry terminal would be placed; transit solutions need to
function as a whole; inquired how work can start on the rest of the transportation system
when the ferry terminal location is unknown.
Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether the ferry would be part of the transit hub.
The Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated the ferry terminal would
meet the bus rapid transit; the matter would be discussed with WETA.
In response to Mayor /Chair Johnson's inquiry, the Public Works Director stated SunCal
has told the City where it wants the ferry terminal.
Mayor /Chair Johnson stated planning is needed.
The Public Works Director stated the matter is being fine- tuned.
Cou.ncilrernber /Board Member /Commissioner Gilmore stated that she assumes there
would be a similar process with AC Transit.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June 1, 2010
The Public works Director stated a similar process would be done with AC Transit
eventually.
Councilrnember /Board Member /Commissioner Tam stated everything takes time;
inquired whether there is enough time to gather information for the June 21' Planning
Board Meeting.
The Public works Director responded the exact ferry terminal location is less important
than the idea of what to have; stated the traffic model would not be that sensitive and
the Board could see how to interrelate transit and land development density.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether the ferry
terminal would be somewhere in the seaplane lagoon.
The Public works Director responded the seaplane lagoon is being proposed; stated
the proposal is a transit hub in the seaplane lagoon with a ferry terminal at the northeast
corner; staff has had discussions with WETA regarding whether there will be enough
ridership to bifurcate from Oakland and move the ferry to the seaplane lagoon; that he
would like to discuss adding harbor Bay; WETA only wants to take on new ferry service
out of the seaplane lagoon if it is financially feasible and the ridership is there;
otherwise, the ferry terminal would remain at the Main Street terminal; there would be
shuttles from Alameda Point to the seaplane lagoon by the end of the 3rd phase.
In. response to Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner del -lawn's inquiry, the
Public works Director responded WETA's boats accommodate 119 and 159
passengers.
Councilmernber /Board Member /Commissioner deHaan stated other options need to be
reviewed; other options are getting few and far between; today's generation will change
employers many times; the vast majority of employees are in the south bay; Concord
does not have any bus service; BART is available in Dublin but is limited in other areas;
the City had three years of commitment; SunCal should have had the issue ironed out.
Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether the matter should be sent back to the Planning
Board, the majority of Councilmembers /Board Members /Commissioners responded in
the negative.
The Deputy City Manager Development Services stated action is needed on the
second item [Setting a Public bearing for Decision on the SunCal Modified optional
Entitlement Application and /or Extension of the ENA from Governing Bodies of Alameda
by July 20, 2010]; staff is looking at either July 6th or July 20 th
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Matarrese stated that he is puzzled why
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and 12
Community Improvement Commission
June 1, 2010
the matter is being addressed tonight when an ARRA meeting was scheduled for
tomorrow but was cancelled; monthly ARRA meetings need to be reestablished.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of setting a
Public Hearing on July 6th, 7th, or 20 to decide on the SunCal Modified OEA and/or
extension of the ENA.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner del lawn seconded the motion.
Under discussion, the Deputy City Manager Development Services stated staff would
come back with a recommendation on which date.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Matarrese stated that he prefers to have
the public hearing at the regular July -nth ARRA meeting which would not conflict with
Council business.
CouncilmemberlBoard Member /Commissioner Tam inquired whether staff expects to
have the submittal that occurred over the weekend, the determination of completeness,
resolution of financial issues, and transportation plan issues available.
The Deputy City Manager Development Services responded a definitive answer on the
incompleteness of the application] can be provided by June 15 th stated follow up on
the financial information could be provided in the next two weeks; staff would be
reporting back on transportation questions on June 15
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner deHaan stated the density bonus leaves
a lot of question in his mind; 1,310 homes is low density; high density is 3,531; the
project is not new development throughout but is adaptive reuse and infill; that he needs
clarification on 29 areas on the reuse of the Batchelor's Enlisted Quarters (BEQ).
The Deputy City Manager Development Services stated the total number of units
would increase by 30 density, in terms of the number of units per acre, occurs
through a density bonus transfer; a density bonus plan cannot be achieved without the
density bonus option and density transfer.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner deHaan stated high density housing is
outside the quarter mile and actually goes beyond the quarter mile; more homes would
be outside the density corridor; provided a handout; stated the orange area is high
density and goes outside the quarter mile; inquired whether high density commercial is
part of the equation.
The Planning Services Manager responded commercial is not part of the density bonus
plan; stated the density bonus ordinance would not govern where SunCal chooses to
put densities.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and 13
Community Improvement Commission
June 1, 2010
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner deHaan stated the red outline on page 4
shows high density residential and commercial; the blue line is the buffer zone; that he
has never seen anything similar in Alameda.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Tarn stated the WRT Study also
analyzed a high range in density that was closer to SunCal's plan.
The Planning Services Manager stated the WRT Study looked at the PDC; the key to
making the overall project work for the City is that the 4,200 unit project would have to
develop and fund a very successful transportation plan that would work for the entire
island; the only way to get people from the 4,200 housing units through the tube would
be to have existing residents chose to participate in a transportation program].
Councilrr ernber/Board Member /Commissioner Tam inquired whether the WRT Study
was commissioned by the City, to which the Planning Services Manager responded in
the affirmative.
Councilmember/Board Member /Commissioner Tarn stated that her comfort level would
increase if she had more information before deciding what the date should be, inquired
whether information could be provided by the next Council meeting, to which the
Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative.
The Deputy City Manager Development Services stated staff would come back on
June 15 th with updates on the completeness of the application, financial issues, and
transit oriented develop aspects.
Councilmernber /Board Member /Commissioner Tarn stated an update should be
provided on the concept of density bonus and density transfer and how it works in light
of the transit oriented development.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
CouncilC7 ember/Board Member /Commissioners del -laan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and
Mayor /Chair Johnson 4. Abstention: Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner
Tam 1.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Tam stated that she needs more
information before she is comfortable with setting a date.
(ARRA) Oral report from Member Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner
Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative Highlights of May 6
Alameda Point RAB Meeting
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and 14
Community Improvement Commission
June 1, 2010
Board Member Matarrese stated the Navy is nearing completion of the replacement and
removal of several radio active storm drain lines that go from Buildings 5 and 400 to the
seaplane lagoon; requested clarification on whether the new storm drains would meet
current standards; stated a number of rernediations are in place; nearly 75% completion
of characterization is being approached; part of the clean up plan includes the former
Todd shipyard near the existing ferry terminal where copper is being removed, which is
not all Navy contamination, but the Navy is paying for it.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor /Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 10:55
P. M.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, C I C
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and 5
Community Improvement Commission
June 1, 2010
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
From: Ann Marie Gallant
Interim Executive Director
Date: June 15, 2010
Re: Adopt the Resolution of the Community Improvement Commission of the
City of Alameda Authorizing the Execution and Delivery of an Agreement
Regarding Refundin of Authority Bonds
BACKGROUND
On July 5, 1933, the Alameda city council established the West End community
Improvement Project (WECIP) for the Community Improvement commission (CIC) of
the City of Alameda. on December 19, 1984, the CIC entered into an Owner
Participation Agreement (as amended and now in effect, the oPA) with Alameda Marina
Associates and Alameda Farina Center Associates, the then majority landowners
(collectively, the Landowners) of the Farina Village development (the Development).
The Development is located within WECIP.
Under the OPA, the Landowners included the Development in the city of Alameda's
Marina Village Assessment District 84 -3 (the Assessment District) and agreed to allow
the levy of special assessments (the Assessments) by the City on the Development.
Landowners also were required to advance funds to the CIC to assure timely
construction of improvements contemplated by the WECIP redevelopment plan. In turn,
the oPA obligates the CIC to annually make payments to some of the property owners
in the Assessment District to reimburse them for Assessments levied on the
Development that have been paid (the Reimbursement obligation).
The city has issued several series of assessment bonds for the Assessment District,
with the only series still outstanding being the Marina Village Assessment District 89-1,
Series 89 -1 Limited obligation Improvement Bonds (the 1989 AD Bonds
In 1997, the Alameda Public Financing Authority (APFA) issued revenue bonds (the
1997 APFA Bonds) to acquire the 89 AD Bonds. on January 27, 1999, the APFA
issued $37,085,000 in Revenue Bonds (the 1999 APFA Bonds), the proceeds of which
were used to refinance the 1997 APFA Bonds. The 1999 APFA Bonds are secured by
a pledge of the 1989 AD Bonds and are payable solely from the debt service payable on
the 1989 AD Bonds. In addition, a Surplus Account was established in which payments
CC /AEtRA/CIC
Report Re:
A9end2 Item ##2 -B
Honorable Chair and June 15, 2010
Members of the Community improvement Commission Page 2 of 3
on the 1989 AD Bonds which are in excess of the debt service on the 1999 APFA
Bonds are deposited. Excess funds that accumulate in the surplus Account, net of
bond program expenses, may be remitted to the CIC.
In 2003, the CIC merged most of its improvement project areas, including WECIP. on
December 18, 2003, the CIC issued its first Merged Project Area tax allocation bonds
(the 2003 Bonds) and deposited a portion of the proceeds in an escrow fund in order to
provide a source of funds to satisfy the CIC's Reimbursement obligation under the
oPA.
$14,075,000 of the 1989 AD Bonds remain outstanding. The City's staff and its
financing advisors have determined that due to favorable interest rates in today's bond
market, it is in the best interest of the Landowners to refund the 1939 AD Bonds along
with the outstanding Harbor Bay Community Facilities District (the CFD) Bonds issued
by the city in 1995 (the 1995 CFD Bonds)
DISCUSSION
Staff recommends that revenue refunding bonds be issued through the APFA in an
amount not to exceed $21 million to refund the 1989 AD Bonds and the 1996 CFD
Bonds (the APFA Refunding Revenue Bonds). The APFA Refunding Revenue Bonds
will be limited obligations of the APFA payable solely from new CFD Refunding Bonds
to be issued by the City (the CFD Refunding ,Bonds) and new AD Refunding Bonds to
be issued by the City (the AD .Refunding .Bonds). The CFD Refunding Bonds will be
payable from the special taxes collected :from the. CFD ;property owners, and the 2010
AD Bonds will be payable from reassessments from the Landowners. The AD
Refunding Bonds will be issued in an amount not to exceed $9.5 million.
In connection with the issuance of the AD. Refunding Bonds and, subsequently, the
refunding of the 1999 APFA Bonds, the APFA, the City, the CIC, and other entities
involved in the refunding program propose to enter into an ..agreement regarding the
refunding of the 1999 APFA Bonds (the 2010 Refunding Agreement). The 2010
Refunding Agreement acknowledges that the new reassessments will be .lower than the
Assessments currently being levied on Landowners. With this in mind, the 2010
Refunding Agreement provides that the CIC will allow.for.funds in the surplus Account
and other excess funds previously disbursed to the CIQ from the Surplus Account to be
used to assist in the refunding of the 1 999 APFA .Bonds .and the 1.989 AD. Bonds. This
will consequently reduce the amount needed to be paid on the AD Refunding Bonds,
thereby saving the Landowners money and reducing the amount of the. Reimbursement
Obligation. In addition, the CIC will agree to advance funds to the fiscal agent for the
AD Refunding Bonds from the escrow fund created with proceeds of the 2003 Bonds if
a parcel subject to the Reimbursement obligation fails to timely pay a reassessment
levied by the City to repay the AD Refunding Bonds.
The documents to which the community Improvement commission is a party related to
the refinancing program are on file in the city clerk's office and include: owner
Honorable Chair and June 15, 2010
Members of the Community Improvement Commission Page 3 of 3
Participation Agreement By and Between Community Improvement Commission of the
City of Alameda and Alameda Marina Village Associates and Alameda Marina Center
Associates, including an Amendment No. 1 and an Amendment No. 2 thereto, and an
Agreement Regarding Refunding of Authority Bonds.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Issuance of the APFA Refunding Revenue Bonds and approval of the 2010 Refunding
Agreement would provide substantial savings to the Landowners in the Development.
Total annual tax savings for Landowners will be approximately $303,000 per year. The
City will be reimbursed from bond proceeds for its administrative costs incurred during
the structuring and issuance of the Bonds. The CIC will advance amounts held by it
arising from amounts previously disbursed to the CIC from the Surplus Account and
amounts in the Surplus Account to assist in the refinancing, and will be obligated to
advance funds in the escrow fund established with proceeds of the 2003 Bonds if
reassessment delinquencies arise. A sources and use of funds (Exhibit 1) and
estimated refunding savings (Exhibit 2) provide a summary of the pertinent financial
detail on this transaction.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution of the Community Improvement Commission of the City of
Alameda authorizing the execution and delivery of an agreement regarding refunding of
Authority bonds.
Respectfu
1. Sources and Uses of Funds
2. Estimated Savings
3. Owner Participation Agreement By and Between Community Improvement
Commission of the City of Alameda and Alameda Marina village Associates and
Alameda Marina Center Associates, together with Amendment No. 1 to owner
Participation Agreement and Amendment No. 2 to Owner Participation Agreement
(on file with the City Clerk's office)
Exhibits:
6/8/2010
SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS
Alameda PFA CFD loo. 1
2010 Refunding Series 201
Sources
Par Amount
Prior Reserve Fund (1)
Prior Bond Fund CIC Surplus (2)
AD 89 Improvement Fund
Par Amount of PFA Bonds
Original Issue Premium (Discount)
Total Sources of Funds
Us es
Deposit to Escrow
Deposit to 2010 Reserve Fund (5)
Deposit to Bond Fond (6)
New AD 89 -1 Improvement Fund
Purchase Local Obligations:
CFD Nro. 1
AD 89 1
Subtotal 1,ocal UbliaationC
L'
Deposit to Cost of Issuance Fund
Allowance for UnderN:% riter's Discount (7)
Total Uses of Funds
S10,780
1.772,010.80
$538,687.37 1,328,257.05
519.780.000.00
S
x-39,787.37
AD 89 -1
59.000.000.00
3,569,281.97
3,691,643.65
2,725.387.32
S12,75- 3 $14 (4)
1 ,078,000.00 1 ,987.0 1 0.03
x-9,732.85 30,013.09
2,725,387.32
Costs of Issitwice Detail
City's Issuance Fee
Bond /Disclosure Counsel Q T
Financial Advisor Sequoia WCH
Reassessment Enaineerino CBS
Printing U.S.
Trustee
Trustee's Counsel
Escrow Agent
CUSIP
Debt Statement
Rating Fee S&P
Rating Fee Fitch
Contingency
Total Costs of Issuance
J,UUU.UU
�4Ui /4.0
$34,125.38
100,000.00
54,499.x-9
45,500.51
196,050.00
106,8.6.26
89,203.74
19,500.00
Ho
19,500.00
9,000.00
0-,904.95
4,095.05
1500.00
1,362.9
1. 1 37.51
2,500.00
1,362.49
1,137.51
2,500.00
1,362.19
1.13`1.51
400.00
218.00
182.00
900.00
490.50
40M0
16.000.00
8.719.92
7,280.08
15.000.00
8.174
6.825.08
437.37
X37.37
0.00
5439,787.37
5229,253.50
$210.5.) 87
(1) Balance as of 5/12, Source: City of Alameda.
(2) Projected balance as of 6022'10. Source: CitN of Alameda,
From CFD 1 S28 3,153.50 Froin AD 89 -1: S255.5 87
(3) Escrow pays debt sen ice due 8/1110 on .Au thority s 1996 Series A Bonds.
Assumes cash- fundec escroW.
(4) Escrow pays debt service due 902110 on AL.thority s 1999 Bonds.
Assumes cash funded escrow.
(5) For CFD No. 1. the Reserve Requirement equals 0% of the principal amount of the Local Ubligatio11,
(6) A1110 unt at least sufficient to pay debt sere lee on the PFA Bonds due 9I?!10.
duals 0.5° of the Bo aottt.
l C
Prepared by Westhoff, Core Holmstedt l Exhibit I to
Rep ort e:
A g e nda Item
0 0
6!5/2010
ESTIMATED SAVINGS
City of Alameda
(CFD No. 1 and AD 89 -1)
17 VFL No. I
Estimated
Annual
2010 -11 Levy
Savings
$1,900 $2,500
$418
$2,501 $3,000
5538
$3,001 $3,500
$645
$3,50 1 $4,100
$763
A.veracye Savings
$618
AD 89-1
Estimated
Annual
Owner
Savings
Legacy Partners I Alameda LLC
$5 16,248
SRU Marina Investors LLC
109,696
Legacy Partners I Alameda 11 LLC
46,907
Victoria farina LLC
32,351
Albertsons
30,597
Oakland Yacht Club
19,601
Loncy`s DI LICTs (Joseph Moore TrUSt)
19,456
Wind River Systems Inc.
13,494
Pacific Marina Hospitality Inc.
12,8.)0
S isk-a, Robert J.
11,88-
SU.btotal Top Ten.
Other Property Owners $50,124
TOTAL $563.215
Prepared by Westhoff, Cone L olmstedt Exhibit 2 to
Re e:
Benda
06-1.54.0
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF AN
AGREEMENT REGARDING REFUNDING OF AUTHORITY BONDS
WHEREAS the Community Improvement y p Commission of the City of
Alameda (the "Commission previously established its west End Community
Improvement Project ("WECIP") and has entered into an Owner Participation
Agreement, effective December 19, 1984 (as amended and now in effect, the
"OPA with Alameda Marina village Associates and Alameda Marina Center
Associates, the then majority landowners (collectively, the "Landowners of the
Marina village development (the Development) located within the WECIP;
and
WHEREAS, under the OPA, the Landowners allowed for the inclusion of
the Development in the City of Alameda's Marina village Assessment District
84 -3 (the "Assessment District and thereby the levy of special assessments
(the "Assessments by the City on the Development, and the Landowners
advanced funds on behalf of the Commission to assure timely. construction of
improvements contemplated by the then redevelopment plan for the WECIP;
and
WHEREAS, the OPA obligates the Agency annually to snake .certain
payments to some of the property owners in the Assessment .District in respect
of the Assessments levied on the Development (the "Reinloursernent
Obligation"); and
WHEREAS, the Commission has merged the WECIP with. other former
improvement project areas to establish the Commission's Merged Project Area
(the "Merged Project Area and, on December 18, 2003, the Commission
issued its $29,645,000 Community Improvement Commission of the Cit y .:Of
Alameda Insured Taxable Tax Allocation Bonds (Merged Improvement Areas),
Series 2003A2 (the "2903 Bonds and deposited a portion of the proceeds of
the 2003 Bonds in an escrow fund established under the Indenture of Trust for
the 2003 Bonds in order to provide a source of funds to satisfy the Agency's
Reimbursement obligation; and
WHEREAS, the City has issued limited obligation improvement bonds
secured by and payable from the Assessments, of which .the City'.s Limited
Obligation Improvement Bonds, City of Alameda, Marina Village Assessment
District 89 -1, series 89 -1 (the"Assessment Bonds remain outstanding; and
WHEREAS, on January 27, 1999, the Alameda Public Financing
Authority (the "Authority issued its $37,685,000 Alameda Public Financing
Authority 1 999 Revenue Bonds (1 997 Revenue Bond Refinancing) (the "1 999
Authority Bonds pursuant to an Indenture of Trust, dated as of January 1,
1999 (the "Authority Indenture between the Authority and the trustee named
Resolution 2 -13
CC ARRA CIC
06-15-10
therein (the "Trustee and the 1999 Authority Bonds are secured by a pledge
of the Assessment Bonds and are payable from the debt service payable on
the Assessment Bonds; and
WHEREAS, the Authority Indenture provides for the establishment by
the Trustee of a Surplus Account (the "Surplus Account into which are
deposited annually payments on the Assessment Bonds that are in excess of
the debt service on the 1999 Authority Bonds; and
WHEREAS, in respect of the Commission's Reimbursement obligation
under the OPA, the Authority Indenture provides that amounts in the Surplus
Account not used to pay costs of the city or the Authority to administer the
1999 Authority Bonds and the Assessment Bonds (the "Bond Program
Expenses shall be applied as provided in an Amended and Restated
Agreement Relating to Assessment Bond Refunding, dated as.of January 27,
1999 (the "Prior Refunding Agreement among the city, the Commission and
the Authority; and
WHEREAS, the Prior Refunding Agreement provides that all .amounts in
the Surplus Account not used to pay Bond Program Expenses shall be remitted
to the Commission for deposit by the Commission in a special fund (the "CIC
Fund to be used for, among other purposes, the reimbursement .or .payment
of the Reimbursement obligation; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has now determined to issue its Alameda
Public Financing Authority 2010 Local Agency Refunding Revenue Bonds
(Harbor Bay CFD and Marina village AD) (the "2010 Authority Bonds"). for.the
purpose, among others, of purchasing from the city its Li.mited..Obligation
Improvement Refunding Bonds, city of Alameda Marina village Reassessment
District No. 10 -1 (the "Reassessment Bonds to be payable from
reassessments (the "Reassessments to be levied in the City-of Alameda
Marina Tillage Reassessment District No. 10 -1 (the "Reassessment District
and
WHEREAS, the proceeds of the Reassessment Bonds. gill be used to
refund the Assessment Bonds and thereby refund the 1999 Authority Bonds,
and the Reassessments will supercede and supplant the Assessments; and
WHEREAS, in connection with the issuance of the 2010.Authority
and the refunding of the Assessment Bonds and the 1999 Authority. Bonds, the
Authority, the City, the Commission, the Trustee and other entities. involved in
the refunding program propose to enter into an Agreement Regarding
Refunding of Authority Bonds (the "2010 Refunding Agreement and
WHEREAS, the 2010 Refunding Agreement acknowledges that, upon
the refunding of the Assessment Bonds and the issuance of the Reassessment
Bonds, the Reassessments to be levied on property in Reassessment District
will be louver than the Assessments that were to be levied on property in the
-2-
Assessment District, including the Assessments that are the subject of the
Reimbursement Obligation of the Commission under the OPA; and
WHEREAS, the 2010 Refunding Agreement further provides that the
Commission will allow for the use of funds in the Surplus Account.and in the
C 1 C Fund to assist in the refunding by the Authority of the 1999 Authority Bonds
and of the Assessment Bonds by the City, thereby further reducing the amount
of the Reassessment Bonds that need to be issued to refund the Assessment
Bonds and the 1999 Authority Bonds, and consequently reducing the amounts
needed to be paid on the Reassessment Bonds and, as a result, allowing for a
further reduction of the Reassessments and of the related Reimbursement
Obligation of the Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Commission now desires to approve the. execution and
delivery by the Commission of the X010 Refunding Agreement in order to assist
the Authority and the City in connection with the issuance of the Reassessment
Bonds and the 2010 Authority Bonds and the refunding of the Assessment
Bonds and the 1999 Authority Bonds, and thereby a reduction in the
Reassessments levied on property in the Reassessment .Distri.ct, including the
Development, and a consequent reduction in the Reirnburseme. t.O.bligation, all
in the best interests of the Commission and in furtherance of the purposes of
the Merged Project Areas.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMUNITY
IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA as follows:
Section 1. The 2010 .Refunding Agreement, in the form on file with the
Secretary, is hereby approved. The Executive. Director is. hereby authorised
and directed to execute and deliver the 2010 Refunding Agreement on behalf
of the Commission in such form, together with such.changes thereto as ma
approved by the Executive Director upon consultation with the City Attorney
and Bond Counsel to the Authority for the 2010 Authority Bonds, the approval
of such changes to be conclusively evidenced by the execution and delivery of
the 2010 Refunding Agreement by the Commission.
Section 2. The Chair, the Executive. Director, the Treasurer, the
Secretary and any and all other officers and staff of the Commission are hereby
authorized and directed .to. take any actions. and execute and deliver. any and .all
documents as are necessary to assist the City and the Authority in the
issuance, sale and delivery of the Reassessment Bonds and the 20.1O.Authority
Bonds, the refunding of the Assessment Bonds and the 1999. Bonds, and the
reduction in the Reassessments to be levied in the Reassessment District, all
as contemplated by the 2010 Refunding Agreement.
Section 3. This Resolution shall take effect upon its adoption by the
Commission.
-3-
1, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly
and regularly adopted and passed by the Community Improvement
Commission of the City of Alameda in a Special Community Improvement
Commission rneeting assembled on thel 5th day of June, 2010 by the following
vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set nay hand and affixed the
official seal of said Commission this 16th day of June, 2010.
Lara Weisiger, Secretary
Community Improvement Commission
Beverly Johnson, chair
Community Improvement Commission
CITY OF A LA M E D A
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the city council
Honorable chair and
Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Honorable chair and
Members of the community Improvement Commission
From: Ann Marie Gallant
Interim city Manager/Interim Executive Director
Date: June 15, 2010
Re: Staff Presentation on Status Report of Finalized Navy Term Sheet
Mandatory Milestone pursuant to ENA Section 4.2.2.
BACKGROUND
In 2005, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) funded and
prepared a Preliminary Development concept (PDC) for Alameda Point, approximately
018 acres of the former Naval Air Station Alameda. This effort was completed in
concert with Alameda Point Community Par ners APCP the developer with whom the
ARRA then had an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA). In 2008, the. Navy and
ARRA, in conjunction with APCP, prepared a Draft Summary of Acquisition Terms and
Conditions for the conveyance of the Former Naval Air Station Alameda (Draft Navy
Term Sheet), which was based on the PDC. Since this was a draft, the parties never
signed or executed the Draft Navy Term Sheet.
The Draft Navy Term Sheet included the following key terms (See Exhibit 1):
1) Property Subject to Agreement. The PDC's Phases 1 and 2, excluding Phase
3 and the Northwest Territories (Property).
2) Consideration. $108.5 million for the value of the Property in both cash and in-
kind consideration for environmental services (i.e., privatized clean -up).
3) Payment Schedule for Consideration. $40.3 million provided in the form of
environmental services and million, plus interest, paid beginning with the
close of the escrow for the 550t residential unit constructed at $78,115 per unit
through the 1,1 47 unit, and $80,211 per unit beginning with the close of escrow
for the 1 unit constructed. Any unpaid balance of the consideration is due
and payable on June 30, 2015.
CC /ARR►/CIC
Report Re:
Agenda Item #3mB
06 -15 -10
Honorable Chair and June 15, 2010
Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 2 of 8
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
4) potential increase in Cash Consideration. In the event more than 1,890
residential units are constructed on the Property, there is an additional $78,115
per unit payment.
5} Potential Decrease in Cash Consideration. The purchase price of the Property
could be reduced by specific amounts if restrictions prohibit residential
construction in certain areas.
When APCP subsequently elected not to proceed with the redevelopment of Alameda
Point, the ARRA decided to select a new master developer through a competitive
Request for Qualifications (RFQ) process to provide the expertise, experience, and
financial resources to overcome the remaining planning challenges and to entitle and
redevelop Alameda Point. SunCal Companies (SunCal) was .one of five respondents to
ARRA's RFQ. As part of its response dated December 4, 2000, SunCal expressed a
willingness to commit to the $108.5 million purchase price and payment schedule
contained in the Draft Navy Term sheet, as well as committed to entitle the PDC or
another Measure A- compliant project. SunCal was selected as party to the ENA for
Alameda Point, in part, because of its commitment to fulfill these obligations.
On July 18, 2007, the ARRA, Community Improvement. Commission (CIC), and. City of
Alameda (together "Alameda approved an Exclusive.. Negotiation Agreement (ENA)
with SunCal, for redevelopment of Alameda Point. SunCal anticipated a 24 -25 percent
internal rate of return on its investment in the redevelopment of Alameda Pint, which is
reflected in the ENA. Subsequent to approval of the ENA, SunC..al conducted technical
infrastructure and engineering analyses and held several community workshops to
inform the preparation of their plan for the site. Through. this planning process, SunCal
decided that a project consistent with Article XXVI of the City's Charter (Leasure A),
which restricts housing density in the City, would not be financially feasible for SunCal.
This decision represented a change from the commitment SunCal made to Alameda in
its response to the ARRA's RFQ.
In March 2008, SunCal requested, and Alameda granted, a First Amendment to the
ENA to postpone various mandatory performance milestones (i.e., submission of a
Development Concept, Infrastructure Plan, Business Plan, and Entitlement Application,
including a Master Plan) by six months.
In October 2008, SunCal requested, and Alameda granted, a second Amendment to
the ENA to (1) transfer ownership interest in SCC Alameda Point LLC to a new entity,
which is owned by an affiliate of SunCal and an affiliate of SunCal's financial partner,
D.E. Shaw; (2) create a process that allowed SunCal to pursue a ballot initiative for a
Honorable Chair and June 16, 2010
Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 3 of 8
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
non Measure A- compliant land use entitlement at Alameda Point expected to occur at
an election to be held in early November 2009; (3) extend the terra of the ENA by one
year to July 2010; and (4) add a Finalized Navy Terra Sheet as a mandatory milestone
to be achieved by July 31, 2009. As permitted by the ENA, at SunCal's request, the
Finalized Navy Term Sheet mandatory milestone was subsequently administratively
extended by one year to July 20, 2010, the end of the ENA terra.
With regard to the ballot initiative process, the Second Amendment to the ENA provided
that if the initiative failed at the anticipated November 20.09 ballot, SunCal would be
permitted to submit an optional Entitlement Application (OEA) by January 16, 2010
approximately 60 days subsequent to the November 2009 .election. This..OEA mould. be
for approval of a project consistent with the .City Charter (Measure A compliant) that
could be processed within the terra of the ENA. The .amendment did not provide
SunCal with the ability to pursue a second ballot initiative, nor did it contemplate
extending the term of the ENA for processing of an OEA.
In December 2008, SunCal submitted to Alameda an Entitlement Application, including
a faster Plan, Infrastructure Plan and Business Plan (Plans), in accordance with the
ENA. The December 2008 Master .Plan was reviewed by Alameda, as well as
numerous City boards and commissions, but could net be formally accepted because it
was not consistent with the City's .Charter, and an Environmental Impact Report had not
been completed. The master Plan did not propose specific development standards for
the project nor modifications to the City's development procedures, processes or fee
structure.
The ENA also required, as a mandatory milestone, that Alameda and SunCal jointly
develop a project proforma by December 19, 2008. Because there was no mutual
agreement between SunCal and Alameda on the business terms for the disposition and
development of the project by that date, the project proforma mandatory milestone was
deemed waived by Alameda under the terms of the ENA.
Based on the Plans and a preliminary project proforma, in December 2008, Alameda
staff, in conjunction with SunCal, initiated discussions with the Navy regarding the Draft
Navy Terns Sheet, including potential revisions to it.
On Larch 26, 2009, SunCal submitted the Alameda Point Revitalization Initiative
(Initiative) to the City. The Initiative included a Charter Amendment, General Plan
Amendment, zoning Amendment, Specific Plan, and Development Agreement (DA), the
details of which were not negotiated with Alameda. The Initiative was determined to
Honorable chair and June 15, 2010
Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 4 of 8
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the city council
Honorable chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
have qualified for the ballot on November 2, 2009 and the city Council set the election
for February 2, 2010.
There was no agreement among the Navy, Suncal and Alameda regarding project
economics or modifications to the Draft Davy Terra Sheet. As a result, discussions did
not result in a Finalized Navy Term Sheet. Alameda, Suncal and the Navy decided in
August 2009 that the results of the election would determine whether to continue
negotiating the Finalized Navy Terra Sheet based on the project economics of the plan
contained in the Initiative or on a different yet- to -be- determined plan.
Prior to the February 2, 2010 election, Suncal submitted an OFA on January 14, 2010
as permitted by the ENA. The OEA submitted by Suncal consisted of substantially the
same plan and processes contained in the Initiative. on February 2, 2010, the Initiative
failed at the polls with 85 percent of those participating in the election voting against the
Initiative. on February 4, 2010, Alameda provided Suncal with a Notice of. Default
(NOD) stating that the OEA submitted by Suncal did not meet the requirements of the
ENA because the OEA conflicted with the City Charter. The only way for.the OEA to
avoid conflicting with the city charter was for Suncal to either submit a Density Bonus
Application (DBA) for the project in compliance with the city's Density Bonus
Ordinance, which Suncal did not do, or to seek an amendment to the City Charter
through a second ballot initiative. However, the ENA affords Suncal no further
opportunities to amend the city charter through a second initiative.
Consistent with the terms of the ENA, Suncal had 30 business days, or not later than
March 22, 2010, to cure the default. On Larch 22, 2010, Suncal submitted a Modified
OEA in response to Alameda's NOD, which included a Measure A- compliant project
(Base Project) that might be modified at a later date through a DBA.
At a meeting with Alameda staff, Suncal stated that they were not going to submit a
DBA at this time consistent with the city's Density Bonus ordinance because the
ordinance requires specific information, such as elevations, which Suncal stated it
cannot provide at this stage of the planning process. However, Suncal indicated
verbally its commitment to developing a higher density project that will permit. the. land
uses, units, and density similar to the Specific Plan contained in the Initiative (Density
Bonus Option), not the Base Project, and that they would like .for the Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) and Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) to include the
Density Bonus option. The Density Bonus Option is essentially the same land use
program as the Initiative with the exception of an increased amount of commercial
development, one acre of additional park and the inclusion of sustainable uses, such as
a solar farm, in the Northwest Territories. Suncal also committed to preparing a master
Honorable Chair and June 16, 2010
Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 5 of 8
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
planned DBA at a future date to avoid a piecemeal approach to implementation of a
higher density project under density bonus law.
As of mid -May, SunCal had provided minimal information on the proposed Density
Bonus option, including the following submittals. (1) an April 13, 2010 project
description letter, (2) a project proforma provided on April 26, 2010 (Project Proforma
and (3) a subsequent project description letter. dated May 18, 2010. Alameda sent a
letter to SunCal on May 19, 2010 stating that the Modified OEA was incomplete and
requested that SunCal submit additional documentation on the Density Bonus option
with sufficient detail so that it can be reviewed and analyzed. by staff and the EI R
consultants, as well as the community, Planning Board, and Alameda at the same time
as the Base Project.
On May 27, 2010, SunCal ernailed a letter to the City's Planning and Building
Department responding to the City's Notice of Incompleteness letter, including
supplemental information to be processed as. part of the Modified OEA. Staff is
reviewing SunCal's response and meeting with SunCal on a ..week.l basis to address
any remaining concerns regarding the completeness of the Modified OEA. Staff will
notify SunCal and the governing boards of Alameda as .soon .as they have determined
whether the information provided to date by SunCal regarding the Modified OEA is
sufficient to deem the application complete.
While the Modified OEA technically cured SunCal's default, staff continues to have
planning, transportation, and economic concerns with the SunCal plan, as to both the
Base Project and the Density Bonus option. on April. 20, 2010, the City of Alameda
provided SunCal with a letter identifying some of staff's. major concerns with SunCal's
current submittal. These concerns were also snared with the Planning Board on May
10, 2010 (continued for further discussion to the May 24, 2010 Planning Board
meeting), with Alameda on May 18, 2010, and with the. Ecenorn Development
Commission on May 20, 2010. On May 28, 2010, SunCal emailed a letter to the .Interim
City Manager responding to Alameda 's April 20, 2010 letter. on June 1, 2010, staff
responded to questions from the governing bodies of Alameda raised at the May 18,
2010 meeting. Staff concerns and the additional questions asked by the governing
bodies of Alameda at the June 1, 2010 meeting are currently being discussed with
SunCal at the weekly meetings. A staff report addressing these issues will be provided
at the July 7, 2010 ARRA meeting.
Since submittal of the Modified OEA, Alameda, SunCal and the Navy have not resumed
discussions regarding a Finalized Navy Term Sheet. This staff report focuses on a
Honorable Chair and June 15, 2010
Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 0 of 8
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
status report of SunCal's attainment of the Finalized Navy Term Sheet mandatory
milestone pursuant to the ENA.
DISCUSSION
The ENA states that no later than 30 days prior to the date for attainment of the
Finalized Navy Term Sheet, staff shall make a presentation to. the governing boards of
Alameda regarding the status of efforts to attain the Finalized Navy Term Sheet
(Section 4.2.2.). Alameda has the right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to extend the
milestone for attainment of the Finalized Navy Terra .Sheet. The Finalized. Navy Terre
Sheet was added to the ENA as a mandatory performance milestone in the Second
Amendment to ensure that SunCal diligently pursued agreement with both the ARR.A
and the Navy on the crucial terms of the conveyance agreement for Alameda Point;
which agreement would necessarily be substantially predicated. on Su and
Alameda's agreement on the project proforma. To date, there is no agreement on
either the project proforma or the terms of the Navy conveyance.
The Finalized Navy Term Sheet and the DMA are the two remaining mandatory
milestones that must be achieved by SunCal before .July 20, 2010, according to the
ENA. If they are not achieved by such date, the ENA will terminate unless the ENA is
extended by Alameda in its sole and absolute discretion. The Navy, Alameda, and
SunCal must agree to all of the terms of the Finalized Navy Term Sheet, pursuant to the
ENA. Based on the contents .of the Draft .Navy Term ..S.heet, the Finalized Navy Term
Sheet, in general, should contain terms and conditions related to the.amount.and timing
of payment(s) to be made to the Navy by Alameda (through its master developer,) in
exchange for the transfer of land from the Navy; phasing and. timing of .conveyance;
environmental issues, including Navy retained clean -up obligations, environmental
services, if any, environmental insurance, enforceable agreements with regulatory
agencies and site management plans; and other key conveyance terms and conditions.
Although SunCal has not presented Alameda with .a proposal for .land payments to the
Navy, SunCal's Project Proforrna assumes the.fol.lowing regarding Navy land payments
(see Exhibit 2 (1) a $10 million upfront payment by conveyance.. of the first phase of
land (2012), which includes the $1 million initial deposit provided by Sun al to Alameda
upon execution of the ENA; (2) a per -unit fee of approximately $62,000 starting in
Phase 3 (2017), or the 2,245th unit, for a total land payment of $108.5 million; and (3)
the property conveyed in exchange for the land payment would be the entire 918-acre
Alameda Point master development area (i.e., all of Phases 1 through 5 and the
Northwest Territories), and not just Phases 1 through 3 as was provided in the Draft
Navy Term Sheet. SunCal has not provided Alameda with any other information
Honorable Chair and June 15, 2010
Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 7 of 8
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
outlining SunCal 's proposed changes to the Draft Navy Term Sheet based on the
Modified oEA.
Before a Finalized Navy Term Sheet can be achieved, the project description for
Alameda Point first must be dearly defined, a realistic phasing plan must be developed
and a project proforma based on these project elements must be negotiated between
the Navy and Alameda, in conjunction .with SunCal..While SunCal has made progress
on defining and clarifying its project description in the Modified OEA over the last two
months, the Modified .oEA has evolved. considerably since its. submittal and has not yet
been deemed complete. SunCal's proposed phasing. plan for development and. its
relationship to the public trust exchange. and.. Navy's environmental remed iation
schedule for the project has only recently been analyzed.. arid. discussed jointly by
SunCal and Alameda. Alameda has not engaged the Nagy in negotiations of a
Finalized Navy Terre Sheet related to the. Modified.OEA.in part.because of the need for
a well- defined project description and thoughtful phasing plan. In addition, Alameda
and SunCal have not agreed on the Project Proforma for the Density Bonus .option,
which was provided in pdf format to Alameda. on .April 20,. 2010. Alameda has serious
concerns with .key assumptions in the Project Proforma, as. described in greater detail in
the June 1, 2010 staff report, and cannot negotiate. with the Navy concerning the
project's ability to support a significant land .payment to the. Navy until these issues are
resolved. It is unlikely that these issues, in particular, will be resolved and a Finalized
Navy Terra sheet agreed to by all parties before the upcoming July 20, 2010 mandatory
milestone date.
Although Alameda has not engaged the Navy in negotiations.. of a Finalized Navy Term
Sheet related to the modified oEA, Alameda staff learned .late on June 8th that SunCal'S
senior management team (Robert Hertzberg, Robert Davenport, Frank Faye, Stan
Brown and Scott Baugh) would be meeting with Mr. Roger Natsuhara, Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary of the Navy (EI&E) at the Pentagon. on June 9". Neither Alameda
nor the Navy officers in San Diego managing the Alameda Point conveyance process
received any advance notice .from Su.nCal .of this meeting, despite repeated .requests by
both Alameda staff and the Navy in San Diego that SunCal.provide advance notice to
both if and when a meeting with senior officers. of the. Navy in the Pentagon is
scheduled, and. that Alameda be given an opportunity to participate in the. meeting.
Further, the ENA (Section 20.1) requires that SunCal not meet or engage in
negotiations with the Navy concerning the project or the project site without giving
advanced reasonable prior notice to Alameda and giving Alameda the opportunity to
It has been difficult to corroborate and analyze the detailed assumptions included in the SunCal Project
Proforma without an Excel version of the document, which was requested from SunCal some weeks ago,
but has yet to be provided.
Honorable Chair and June 15, 2010
Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 8 of 8
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
negotiate with SunCal and the Navy in such meeting or negotiations, and further
provides that SunCal is authorized to communicate directly with the Navy about the
project only so long as SunCal promptly keeps Alameda informed of all such
communications. The ENA permits such communications so that SunCal may have
informal discussions with the Navy about the project; it was not intended to authorize
SunCal to meet and negotiate conveyance terms with the Navy without reasonable
notice to Alameda and an opportunity for Alameda to participate in to protect its very
substantial interest as the current lessee and future transferee of Alameda Point.
SunCal's election to meet with the Navy concerning the project, which meeting likely
included discussions and negotiations concerning the terms of conveyance, without
providing notice or an opportunity to participate to Alameda, much less keeping
Alameda promptly informed of such communications, constitutes a breach of SunCal's
obligations under the ENA.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no financial impact.
RECOMMENDATION
This is for information only.
Rspe tfully submitted
Jen fifer9 tt
Deputy City Manager
Exhibits:
1. Graft Summary of Acquisition "Terms and Conditions for the Conveyance of the
Former Naval Air station Alameda
2. April 26, 2010 SunCal Density Bonus option Project Proforma
1
I
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
BETWEEN SUMMARY OF ACQUISITION TERMS AND CONDITIONS
FOR THE
CONVEYANCE OF THE
FORMER NAVAL. AIR STATION -ALAMEDA,
ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ACTING BY AND THROUGH
THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
D
THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORIT)
Transferor: The United States of America, acting by and through
the Department of the Navy "Government
Transferee: The Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
CARRA a joint powers authority established under
the California ,point Exercise of Pagers Act, Title 1,
Division 7, Chapter. 5, Article 1 (Section 6500 et seq.)
of the California Government Code, and consisting of
the City of Alameda and the Community Improvement
Commission of the City of Alameda ("CIC"), is
recognized as the local redevelopment authority by
the office of Economic Adjustment on behalf of the
Secretary of Defense.
Purpose. The Government and the ARIA (referred to herein
collectively as the "Parties") executed the Agreement
for the Conveyance of Portions of the .Former Naval
Air Station Alameda from the United States of
America to the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority dated 6 June 2000, pursuant to Section
2905(b )(4) of the DBC.RA, as amended, allowing for
an eco nom ic.d eve lopment conveyance of the
property "EDC MOA The EDC MOA must be
amended to. support conveyance of the Property
under this authority, and the Parties wish to
memorialize the preliminary terms, with respect to the
EDC MoA Amendment, as agreed to during
negotiations from March 2004 through the date of
execution of this Summary of Terms.
The terms and conditions set forth in this Summary of
Acquisition Terms and Conditions For The CC1ARRA/C C
Exhibit 7 to
Report Re:
Agenda Item ##3 -B
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
�5
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Conveyance of the Former Na val Air Station
Alameda, Alameda, California, Between the United
States of America Acting By and Through the
Department of the Navy and the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authodty "Summary of Terms")
constitute non binding obligations relating to the
conveyance of the former Naval Air Station Alameda,
all of which are subject to further revision. This
Summary of Terms establishes a framework from
which the Parties will work to negotiate and execute a
final EDC MOA Amendment that is consistent with the
Summary of Terms. The EDC MOA Amendment
shall contain additional temps and conditions as
required by law or deemed necessary by the Parties.
The Summary of Terms recognizes the relationship
between the ARRA and Alameda Point community
Partners "APCP The ARRA's ability to enter into
the EDC MOA Amendment is dependent upon:
1.) execution and delivery of a legally binding
Disposition and Development Agreement between the
CIC and APCP;
2.) procurement by the ARRA of Environmental
Insurance to the satisfaction of the Parties;
3.) execution by the Parties of the Cooperative
Agreement detailing the Environmental Services to be
provided;
4.) completion by the Government of the draft final
CERCLA Record of Decision (ROD) for OU -1 (IR
Sites 8, 7, 8 and 16);
5.) receipt of comments from United States
Environmental Protection Agency and the State of
California Department of Toxic Substances control on
a draft CERCLA ROD for I R site 35;
8.) approval of a Finding of Suitability for Early
Transfer by the Governor of the state of California
and the Administrator of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency;
7.) and approval by the California State Lands
Commission and execution of a public trust exchange
agreement authorizing the release of the State's
sovereign interest and termination of the public trust
in substantially all of the lands within Parcel 1 and
Parcel 2 that are not shown as subject to the public
trust in the diagram in section 11 of chapter 734 of
the Statutes of 2000.
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
The Parties recognize the EDC MOA Amendment
shall take effect only following completion by the
Parties of any and all environmental reviews required
pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act
("NEPA"), the National Historic Preservation Act
"NHPA and the California Environmental Quality
Act "CEQA California Public Resources Code
Section 21000 et seq., the CEQA Guidelines, Title 14
of the California Code of Regulations, section 15000
et sett., and any applicable local CEQA guidelines.
Legal Authorities: Section 2905(b)(4) of the DBCRA of 1990, as
amended (10 USC 2687, note); Code of Federal
Regulations 32 CFR as amended; and
CERCLA 42 USC 9620 (h)(3)(C).
Property Description: The real property and related personal property
covered by this Summary of Terms consists of
approximately x acres of land, together with
appurtenant buildings and other improvements,
located at the former Naval Air station Alameda,
Alameda, California, as shown in Exhibit A -1. For the
purposes of this summary of Terms, the parcels will
be titled as Parcels 1, 2, 3 and.the Coast Guard
Parcel, which are described as follows:
Parcel 1 consists of approximately x acres of land,
together with appurtenant buildings and other
improvements, as shown in Exhibit A -2.
Parcel 2 consists of approximately x acres of land,
together with appurtenant buildings and other
improvements, as shown in Exhibit A -3. Parcel 1 and
Parcel 2 are further known as "the Property."
Parcel 3 consists of approximately x acres of land,
together with appurtenant buildings and other
improvements to be retained by the Government for
disposal, which is not a part of the Property subject to
disposal to the ARRA, as shown in Exhibit A -4.
The Coast Guard Parcel consists of approximately x
acres of land, together with buildings and other
improvements to be retained by the Government for
3
t
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
1?
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2?
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42?
43
44
45
46
Definitions:
disposal, which is not a part of the Property subject to
disposal to the ARRA, as shown in Exhibit A -5.
The EDC MOA Amendment (and attachments) will
include the following definitions:
"Environmental Insurance" shall mean a cleanup
Cost cap policy and a Pollution Legal Liability "PLL
policy or policies, the terms of which will be
negotiated at a later date.
"Environmental Regulatory Agency or Agencies" shall
include the United States Environmental Protection
Agency "USEPA California Environmental
Protection Agency "CalEPA Department of Toxic
Substances control "DTSC State Water Resources
Control Board, San Francisco. Bay Regional water
Quality control Board "SFB RWQCB Integrated
Waste Management Board, Department of Health
Services (DHS), State Lands Commission, Bay Area
Air Quality Management District "BAAQMD and
County of Alameda Department of Environmental
Health.
"Environmental Services" shall mean:
(a) all response and corrective actions addressing
releases of hazardous substances or petroleum in
Parcel 1 that are necessary in order to achieve
"Regulatory closure" in accordance with applicable
laws and regulations and approved by Government
(as provided in the cooperative Agreement) for the
land uses specified in the February 1, 2006 Alameda
Point Preliminary Development Concept ('PDC"),
except for Ineligible Mork and Davy Retained
Conditions;
(b) performance of associated "Long -Terra
Obligations"; and
(c) preparation and implementation of portions of a
Site Management Plan "SMP which establishes
procedures for addressing releases of hazardous
substances and petroleum discovered after
conveyance in accordance with applicable
environmental laws and regulations in a manner that
4
1.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
is otherwise consistent with this summary of Terms
(e.g., Environmental services do not include Ineligible
Work) if such portions of an SMP are approved by
Government as provided below.
"Government Agency" shall include the Environmental
Regulatory Agencies and shall also include, but not
be limited to, the United states Navy, the Department
of Defense, United states Fish and wildlife service,
United states Array Corps of Engineers, state Historic
Preservation officer, San Francisco Day Conservation
and Development Commission, and the California
Department of Fish and Game.
"Long terra obligations" shall mean any long terra
review; long -terra monitoring; reporting;
implementation of institutional and engineering
controls; or operation and maintenance of remedial,
monitoring, structural or other equipment for long -term
management of residual chemicals remaining on
Parcel 1 after Regulatory Closure. Long -terra
Obligations shall include, but are not limited to, any
environmental controls or requirements set forth by
restrictions, notifications or covenants in the deed
conveying Parcel 1 to the ARRA.
"Navy Retained Conditions" shall mean any condition
associated with Unexploded ordnance; Military
Munitions; chemical, radiological, or biological warfare
agents; Radiological Materials; medical waste; and
natural resources damages pursuant to Section 107
of CERCLA to the extent notarising from actions of
the ARRA, its successors in interest, or their
contractors; groundwater remediation of oU -213,
oU2C- and IR -15 (except for the. southern plunge)
within Parcel 1; and investigation, remediation and all
corrective action activities within Parcel 2, Parcel 3
and the Coast Guard Dousing Parcel.
"Regulatory Closure" shall mean approval or
certification of completion of any necessary remedial
or corrective action or issuance of a "No Further
Action" letter or equivalent finding by the appropriate
Environmental Regulatory Agency or Agencies
pursuant to the statutes and regulations administered
by those Agencies.
5
1
2
"Rernediation Funds" shall mean the funds to be
3
dedicated by the ARRA towards Environmental
4
Services and the cost of purchasing Environmental
5
Insurance including, but not limited to, the cost of
C
premiums, self insured retention, deductibles, and co-
1
insurance.
8
9
"Restrictions or Limitations Beyond the control of the
10
ARRA and city" hereinafter "Restrictions," shall
11
mean any institutional control (including, but not
12
limited to, deed restrictions or environmental
13
covenants), citizen initiated ballot measure approved
14
by the electorate, order or judgment of an
15
administrative body or court, state legislation, or
16
requirement of a Government Agency, other than the
17
ARRA or the City of Alameda, that at the time of
18
conveyance of the Property prohibits new residential
19
development in those areas of Parcel 1 (as shown in
20
Exhibit A -0) that are specifically identified for
21
residential use in the PDC, such that the number of
22
residential units that can be constructed is reduced to
23
less than 1,147.
24
25
26 Terms:
The EDC boA Amendment (and attachments) will
27
include the following terms:
28
29
Consideration. The value of the Property has been
30
established for purposes of this Summary of Terms.
31
In exchange for the Property, the ARRA shall pay as
32
consideration to the Government One Hundred Eight
33
Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars
34
($108,500,000), which is the value .of the Property rt
p y as
35
negotiated by the Parties. The ARRA shall provide a
36
portion of this consideration in the form of
37
Environmental Services, costing a total of Forty
38
Gillian Three Hundred Thousand Dollars
39
($40,300,000). The ARRA shall remit Sixty-Eight
40
billion Two Hundred Thousand Dollars
41
($68,200,000), plus interest as defined below, as a
42
Cash consideration in accordance with the following
43
Paragraphs. The apportionment of the consideration
44
between Environmental Services and Cash
45
Consideration may be changed by mutual consent of
46
the Parties prior to conveyance of the Property;
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
however, the total consideration of $108,500,000 is
only subject to change as defined herein.
Cash Consideration Payment Schedule. Subject to
the following paragraphs, the ARRA shall pay the
Government sixty -Eight Million Two hundred
Thousand Dollars ($68,200,000) in installments as
follows, unless at the. time of conveyance, Restrictions
prohibit new residential development in those Parcels
shown in Exhibit A -6. Beginning with the close of
escrow for the 550 residential unit constructed, the
ARRA will pay the Government a pe.r -unit payment of
Seventy -Eight Thousand One Hundred Fifteen Dollars
($78,115) for units 550 through 1147. The per -unit
payment will be increased o Eighty -line Thousand
Two Hundred Eleven Dollars .($80,211) beginning
with, and after the close of escrow for, the 1148" unit
constructed. Payments will be due .quarterly
(calendar year basis) on the last business day of each
quarter for all residential units for which escrow has
closed. Commencing with the close of escrow for the
first residential unit, the ARRA shall submit to the
Government a quarterly report detailing the status of
all residential units. The quarterly report shall detail,
by parcel, the units closed, started and under
construction for that month as .well as list the
cumulative total of units closed by parcel.
Any unpaid balance of the Cash Consideration is due
and payable on June 30, 2015. If all remedial action
to allow residential use of Parcel 2 .as described in the
PDC has not been taken as provided in section
120(h) of CFRCLA, the amount of that unpaid
balance related to Parcel 2. may be deferred. The
amount of the unpaid balance that may be deferred
shall be proportional to the residential. acreage within
Parcel 2 not available for residential use consistent
with the PDC divided by the total residential acreage
within Parcel 2 for which Cash Consideration has not
already been paid. In that event, payment of a portion
of the unpaid balance, otherwise due on June 30,
2015, may be deferred and will not be due until ninety
(00) days following US EPA approval that any long
term remedial activities have been demonstrated to
be operating properly and successfully as provided in
Section 120(h) of CERCLA. This payment deferral
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2-`5
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
will not appl to an amounts which remain due on
June 30, 2015 as a result of escrow closin
Additional Consideration. As additional
consideration, not later than the certification of the
ARRA's CEQA document supportin the PDC, the
ARRA shall appl to the Cit of Alameda to zone (a
Parcel 3 in accordance with the land uses identified
for Parcel 3 in the PDC, and (b) the Coast Guard
Housin Parcel to permit the construction of 282
units.
Condition Re Modification to
Cash Consideration Pa Schedule. If dela in
Re Closure of Nav Retained Conditions
dela the PDC. development schedule as reflected in
the Cash Consideration Pa Sch edule, the Cash
Consideration Pa Schedule ma be modified b
mutual consent of the Parties.
Condition for Increase in Cash Consideration
Pa In the event the ARRA constructs more
than 1,390 residential units on the Propert the
ARRA shall pa the Gover ent Sevent
Thousand One Hundred Fifteen Dollars $78,115 for
each residential unit constructed above 1,390. ARRA
will submit pa q uarterl y to the Government for
an units for which escrow has closed.
Condition for Decrease in Cash Consideration
Pa Schedule. If the entitlement process
results in Restrictions which prohibit new residential
construction in Area 1 (as shown in Exhibit A-6), then
the purchase price of the propert shall be reduced b
Ei Million Dollars ($8,000,000
If the entitlement process results in Restrictions which
prohibit new residential construction in Area 2 (as
shown in Exhibit A-6), then the purchase price shall
be reduced b Six Million Five Hundred Thousand
Dollars ($6,500,000
If the purchase price is subject to a reduction as a
result of Restrictions imposed throu an of the
aforementioned scenarios and if an such
Restrictions are subse removed before June
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
30 2015, thereb permittin new residential
construction in either or both Areas 1 or 2, then in that
case the correspondin reduction will no lon appl
to the unrestricted Area(s) and the amount of the
reduction will be due and pa as part of the
purchase price.
Interest Pa The interest pa for Parcel
1 shall be calculated usin the United States Ten (10)
Year Treasur Bond Rate plus 150 basis points as of
the date of close of escrow for the 550th residential
unit constructed. From the close of escrow for the
55 01h unit, the rate for all units constructed within
Parcel 1 (Units 551-1147) shall remain fixed and shall
appl to the amount of Cash Consideration due on all
such units. For each residential unit constructed
within Parcel 1, interest shall.accrue be at the
date of the close of escrow for the 55 th unit until the
close of escrow for that unit. Inter pa shall
be due and pa in the same time and manner as
the Cash Consideration. The interest pa for
Parcel 2 shall be calculated usin the United States
Ten (10) Year Treasure Bond Rate plus 150 basis
points as of the date of close of escrow for the 1148 1h
unit (or the first unit constructed within Parcel.2 That
interest rate shall remain fixed for all units constructed
each
within -Parcel 2, and interest pa on e ch
residential unit shall be calculated.and paid in the
same manner as the interest pa for units
constructed within Parcel 1 except that interest shall
accrue be on the date of close of escrow for
the 1148" unit (or the first unit constructed within
Parcel 2).
The ARRA to Provide Environmental Services as
In-Kind Consideration. At the time of .conve of
the Propert the ARRA shall obli Fort Million
Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($40,300,000) as
Rernediation Funds. The ARRA shall spend the
Rernediation Funds exclusivel on Environmental
Services and Environmental Insurance. As the
Parties develop, ne and execute Environmental
Insurance documents, the allocation of the
consideration between the Rernediation Funds and
the Cash Consideration Pa ma be chan b
mutual consent of the Parties. For instance, to the
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
3-")'-
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
extent the cost of purchasin Environmental
Insurance acceptable to both Parties exceeds Ei
Million Dollars ($8,000,000 the excess cost will be
offset a the Cash Consideration Pa
Application of Remainin Remediation Funds. If
an Remediation Funds remain after the completion
of Environmental Services within Parcel 1, the funds
shall be used to conduct Environmental Services
within Parcel 2. In the event all remedial actions in
Parcel 2 are complete, the ARRA shall remit the
remainin funds to the Government in lieu of
providin Environmental Services at the
Government's re
Parcel 1 Environmental Services A The
ARRA shall conduct all necessar Environmental
Services on Parcel 1, as defined in this Summar of
Terms in accordance with and subject to the terms of
the Cooperative A and subject to the
availabilit of Remediation Funds and an proceeds
from Environmental Insurance procured pursuant to
the Cooperative A except as provided in the
Environmental Services Guarantee set forth below.
This commitment excludes Ineli Work and Nav
Retained Conditions.
Environmental Services Guarantee for Certain
Specified Conditions. In addition to the g eneral
commitment to provide Environmental Services on
Parcel 1, set forth immediatel above, the ARRA
g uarantees and warrants that the Environmental
Services shall be conducted and completed b the
ARRA for all petroleum-onl conditions and conditions
listed in Exhibit (yy) on Parcel 1 re of whether
or not Rem Funds or the proceeds of
Environmental Insurance procured under the
Cooperative A are available to conduct and
complete such services. This g uarantee excludes
Ineli Work and an Nav Retained Conditions.
Exhibit (yy) shall be modified, if necessar to exclude
conditions that have received Re Closure as
of the date of conve of the Propert
The ARRA to Obtain Enforceable A with
the Environmental Re A FFA
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Amendments. The ARRA shall conduct the
Environmental Services, obtain Regulatory Closure,
and comply with Long Terra obligations in
accordance with enforceable agreements entered into
with the appropriate Environmental Regulatory
Agency or Agencies (e.g., CERCLA Section 106
Administrative order on Consent with USEPA,
Consent Agreement with DTSC pursuant to HSC
Chapters 6.6 and 6.8 and/or the RWQCB pursuant to
Section 13304 of Water Code). The Government
shall pursue amendments of the Federal Facility
Agreement "FFA with USEPA, DTSC, and the
RWQCB, in consultation with the ARRA, in order to
reflect the ARRA's assumption of responsibility to
conduct and complete certain Environmental Services
within Parcel 1 as set forth in this Summary of Terms.
Site Management Plan. The ARRA may prepare a
draft SM P and present it to the appropriate
Environmental Regulatory Agencies and the
Government for review and comment, The SMP may
contain provisions addressing procedures for
responding to releases of hazardous .substances and
petroleum in Parcel 1. These proced u res shall be
consistent with applicable .lags and regulations and
this Summary of Terns (e.g., may address
Regulatory Closure and Long -term Obligations, and
may not provide for use of Rernediation Funds or
Environmental insurance for .ineligible work). The
Government shall .consider the input of the
Environmental Regulatory Agencies in determining
whether or not to approve a portion of the SM P
addressing releases of hazardous substances and
petroleum discovered after conveyance in accordance
with applicable environmental laws and regulations
and reference or incorporate such portions of an SIVIP
into the Cooperative Agreement before the EDC M
Amendment is executed.
Ineligible work. Environmental Services shall not
include, and the ARRA may not use the Remediation
Funds to perform, the following work:
a. Cleanup of lead based paint ("LBP") and asbestos
containing materials "ACID incorporated into
building materials in their original location.
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
b. cleanup of pesticides and herbicides applied in
accordance with the requirements of FI FRA and
its predecessors including, but not limited to,
chlordane applied as a termiticide to wooden
structures and their foundations.
c. Management and off -site disposal of contaminants
or solid waste excavated or generated during the
course of "redevelopment activity" within any site
within Parcel 1 for which a Regulatory closure
determination has been approved by the
appropriate Environmental Regulatory Agency or
Agencies. "Redevelopment activity" includes but is
not limited to construction of roads, utilities, and
structures and demolition and/or removal of
"hardscape" such as roads, sidewalks, and
building foundations.
d. Additional remediation necessary to implement a
change in land use from the PDc.
e. Management and disposal of construction and
demolition debris.
f. clean up of contaminants that have not been
released into the environment from within existing
buildings and structures; provided that
Remediation Funds may be used to remove
liquids, solids, gases, sediments, and /or sludges
from oil /water separators and and
containment vessels within or beneath structures
to the extent the equ.iprnent and. vessels are not
reasonably discoverable by visual inspection
during a walk- through.
g. cleanup of background levels of chemicals as
defined by the Environmental Regulatory Agencies
and the Government.
h. cleanup necessary solely to satisfy the ARRA's
obligations under the LI FOC.
i. Non cleanup environmental compliance activities
relating to ARIBA's redevelopment/construction
following conveyance (e.g., compliance with air
quality permit requirements for control of fugitive
dust emissions that are not contaminated with
hazardous substances or petroleum and NPDES
stormwater discharge permit requirements
regulating excavation /disturbance of soil that is not
contaminated with hazardous substances or
petroleum).
12
1
j. Any other work or activity that is not necessary in
2
order to: 1.) achieve "Regulatory closure" for
3
releases of hazardous substances or petroleum in
4
Parcel 1 or 2.) perform associated "Long-term
5
Obligations
6
7
Parties to Seek to obtain Environmental
8
insurance. The Parties shall use their best efforts to
9
mutually investigate the availability of Environmental
10
Insurance that is satisfactory to both Parties. Such
11
investigation shall commence upon execution of this
12
Summary of Terms and both Parties shall attempt to
13
conclude this investigation within ninety (90) days
14
thereafter. The Cooperative. Agreement and/or EDc
15
MOA Amendment shall include several insurance and
16
liability related provisions, including provisions
17
addressing certain defined terns (including "Known
18
conditions "Reasonably Expected Environmental
19
conditions" and "Unknown Conditions as
20
appropriate, with supporting attachments, "Liability
21
and Insurance "Government as Additional Insured"
22
"Waiver of Right of Subrogation "Indemnification
23
and "Waiver and Release The defi.ni.tion and scope
24
of these terms and provisions will be reviewed during
25
the course of the Environmental Insurance
26
investigation, and will be "finalized" in the cooperative
27
Agreement.
28
29
If Environmental Insurance to the satisfaction of the
30
Parties is obtained whereby all or a portion of the
31
premiums paid with Rernediation .Funds are returned
32
to the ARRA, those sums may be used .by the ARRA
33
solely for .Environmental services and for the cost of
34
Environmental Insurance, if additional Environmental
35
Insurance is agreeable to the Parties.
36
37
Accounting for Remediation Funds. The Parties
38
shall agree on an accounting mechanism to track the
39
cumulative total expenditure of Remediation Funds
40
spent by the ARRA for eligible costs within the scope
41
of the Ec MOA Amendment. At a minimum the
42
accounting mechanism will require the ARRA to
43
provide the Government with (a) all documentation
44
required by the Environmental Insurance carriers and
45
(b) documentation required by cooperative
46
Agreement regulations, as applicable.
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
1.8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Government to Deliver CERCLA RODs Prior to
Conveyance of the Property. The Government shall
employ its best efforts to ensure that the draft final
CERCLA Record of Decision (ROD) for OUw (IR
Sites 5, 7, 8, and 6) has been finalized and
comments have been received from USEPA and the
State of California on a draft CERCLA ROD for I R
Site 35 prior to the date of conveyance of the Property
subject to the requirements of CERCLA, the National
Contingency Plan, and FI =A,
Davy Retained conditions and Government
Remediation Responsibilities for. Parcel 2, Parcel
3 and the coast Gard Housing Parcel. The
Government retains responsibility for all
environmental activities in Parcel 2, Parcel 3 and the
Coast Guard Housing Parcel, and for Navy Retained
Conditions.
Government Comeback Provisions. The
Government's statutory obligations under section
20(h) of CERCLA shall be set forth in Quitclaim
Deed(s) for the Property.
Early Transfer. The Parties agree that on the date of
execution of the EDC MOA Amendment, the
Government shall convey Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 via
Early Transfer (CERCLA 42 USC 9620 (h)(3)(C)) to
the ARRA if all statutory and regulatory requirements
have been adequately resolved and required
concurrences have been obtained.
NPL De-listing(s). The Government shall cooperate
with and support future requests by the ARRA in
proposing to USEPA that all or a portion of the former
NAS Alameda facility be delisted from the CERCLA
National Priorities List ("NPL"),
Parties Failure to Perform. The EDC. MOA
Amendment shah include language defining rights
and remedies in the event either Party fails to perform
any defined obligation.
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
n o
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Settlement of ASBCA Case No. 54684 [Appeal of
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Under Large Parcel Lease N6247497RPOOP68].
The Parties agree to settle ASBCA case No. 54084
pursuant to the successful execution of a Settlement
Agreement to be drafted upon execution of this
Summary of Terms, with both Parties employing best
efforts to execute the Settlement Agreement within
ninety (90) days. The Settlement Agreement shall
include the following: Within five (5) business days
following execution of the EDC..MOA Amendment, the
ARRA shall pay to the Government Five Hundred
Thousand Dollars ($500,000). In addition, the ARRA
will become a cooperating agency, as defined in 40
CFR 1508.5, and will perform the scope of work set
forth in the Settlernent to assist the
Government address its NEPA and NHPA .o.bligations
as required to complete conveyance of Parcels 1 and
2, and the Public Benefit Conveyance Parcels
previously covered in the Government's Final
Environmental Impact Statement and NEPA Record
of Decision. The Parties agree the "scopes of NH PA
and NEPA services to Be Performed by ARRA"
(Exhibit C) shall be incorporated into the executed
version of the Settlement Agreement.
Documents to be completed by the Parties.
The Parties agree to draft, submit, review, and
execute the following documents prior to conveyance
of the Property: EDC MOA Amendment(s), Ll FOC
Amendment(s), a Settlement Agreement regarding
ASBCA case No. 54584 detailing the NEPA and
NHPA support to be provided by the ARRA, a
Cooperative Agreement detailing the Environmental
Services to be performed by the ARRA (including
Exhibit (yy)), and the SIVIP, if the Parties agree to
proceed with an SM P. The Parties recognize that the
Master schedule, attached as Exhibit (B), documents
all tasks and milestones and agree to review and
update the master schedule until the date of
conveyance of the Property.
The ARRA agrees to submit to the Government a
revised EDc Application and a formal request for
Early Transfer and the PDc, consistent with this
Summary of Terms.
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Prior to conve of the Propert the Government
a to finalize and execute the Covenant Deferral
Re to the Administrator of the USEPA and
Governor of State of California, with all Supportin
Documentation, consistent with this Summar of
Terms.
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Debra Kurita
Executive Director
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authorit
Kimberl Kesler
Director
Nav Base Reali and
Closure Pro Mana
Off ice
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Attachments
Note Ao: Reviewers AIIIIAttachm t d �,De ve opme nt:—�.:A u set of
Attachme nts willbe reviewedand
approved b both
t
par. ies-prior p
Y
execu tion.
A. Propert Description Map (Exhibit A-1 throu A-6)
B. Master Schedule (Exhibit B
C. Scopes of NHPA and NEPA Services to be Performed b ARRA (Exhibit C)
D. Conditions Sub To Environmental Services Guarantee (Exhibit Yy")
is
rl
u
t 3 s- cam: :1' v= c s w rr� cs o r= �ti r� i-^
C14 Cs t
00 -7- r;71
r— 1`4 eN M
01- "X, r- t—
C-A
s L C 4 Lr7 GC r C'4
-41 4
f a �k
�N
5
Vlv
c%
r
C.0 7= VN
in rq C,4
F'] Irk :t' r C=•
.w"^ wC i i C Y L",3 tom- (v. v"; C`I C� `...7 Fr': ClJ° ti f C
r 4
V'1 C:> t�o
C'4
14
V-1 v�,
IN f
C14 r-:
k
QO
r-
cn
ti
ny CN
tr-
i r_+
cq --N CD v'l
Vi n-
C C� -3 Coo c-1 ZN
'ZI
-S!
Cti
dL
S,
X
L.
Eli
CC/ARRA/CI C
Exhibit 2 t®
Report Re:
A Item #3-B
®o-
l 5-10
75
CE
-S!
Cti
dL
S,
X
L.
Eli
CC/ARRA/CI C
Exhibit 2 t®
Report Re:
A Item #3-B
®o-
l 5-10
s k I
IT r-
41)
c
.7n tr,, r4 cz� 17
77 e l l C--
cl J
-zr
kr)
DO vi lyl.
C/` I-N G- r- v
1:6 t—
a r- cS
QC
zf
tl
tt
tc
Q- w-t tai 4=,- "o
1ti C it"
tr tn
r-Q
cy.,
r•
f.
r", C, [11: i t.,F S
-n
C-4
rN c
rc
iJ
r F 3 I
I-M
C-4
f� C� u I
C;r, n
110
�7
6
C-5
7a
75
7-- A
to
cz
r", C, [11: i t.,F S
-n
C-4
rN c
rc
iJ
r F 3 I
I-M
C-4
f� C� u I
C;r, n
110
�7
6
C-5
7a
CITY OF
Memorandum
To: Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
From: Ann Marie Gallant
Interim Executive Director
Date: June 15, 2010
Re: Hold a Public Hearing and Adopt a Resolution Approving and Adopting the
Five -Year Implementation Plan for the Business and Waterfront and vilest
End Community Improvement Projects for FY09 -10 FY13 -14
BACKGROUND
Section 33490 of the California Health and Safety Code, California Redevelopment Law
(CRL), requires that on or before December 31, 1994, and each five years thereafter,
the Community Improvement Commission (CIC) prepare an implementation plan for
each redevelopment project area. This requirement usually accompanies a report on
the accomplishments of the prior five years as Drell. The public review draft (on file with
the City Clerk) includes the FY09 -10 FY13 -14 Implementation Plan for the Business
and Waterfront Improvement Project (BWIP) and the Vilest End Community
Improvement Project (WECIP). The administrative draft Implementation Plan was
presented to the Economic Development Commission (EDC) for review and comment
on April 15. The EDC did not have any suggested changes. The Implementation Plan
for the Alameda Point Improvement Project (APIP) is not under consideration at this
time. This redevelopment area will require an implementation plan update during FY10-
11.
DISCUSSION
An Implementation Plan is intended to identify programs focused on the goals of each
Redevelopment Area and is not intended to address specific projects. Any specific
projects that may be referenced are for illustrative purposes only to help clarify the
range of activities that may be initiated and are not intended to represent an inclusive
listing. Additionally, programs and projects listed do not limit the CIC from modifying the
plan as needed or as opportunities arise.
The proposed Implementation Plan for FY09 -10 FY13 -14 contains the same programs
as the previous Implementation Plan and does not contain any substantive changes in
policies or scope. The guiding policy documents for BWIP and WECIP continue to be
the Community Improvement Plans, Downtown vision, Economic Development
Strategic Plan, and the City's Retail Development Strategy.
CC /ARRAICIC
Public Hearing
Agenda Item ##44
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
Major program accomplishments from the previous five years include:
0 Acquisition and construction of Bridgeside Shopping Center
Assistance to Alameda Free Library
0 Infrastructure improvements for Alameda Marketplace
Cavenaugh Motors site re -use
i Bayport residential project
0 Shinsei Gardens
i Breakers at Bayport
0 Alameda Theatre and Civic Center Garage
0 Seventy -seven fagade grants
Park and Webster streetscapes
Stargell Avenue improvements
Webster District Strategic Plan
June 15, 2010
Page 2 of 3
and the former
Sublease agreements with Robeks and Peet's Coffee at 1363 -1305 Park St.
a Lease agreements with Alameda Wine Company and BurgerMeister at the
Historic Alameda Theatre
Alameda Unified School District capital improvements
a Ruby Bridges park and community center
State law requires that the CIC hold a public hearing to consider approval of the
Implementation Plan. The purpose of the hearing is to provide an opportunity for the
general public to discuss the proposed Implementation Plan in accordance with the
California Health and Safety Code (California Redevelopment Law).
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Implementation plans do not imply a financial commitment to specific projects. Details
on Specific activities are reviewed annually at the time the CIC budget is adopted.
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
The update of the Implementation Plan for the BW I P and w EC I P is consistent with the
adopted plans and with Community Redevelopment Law
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
AB 1200 states that adoption of an implementation plan does not constitute a project as
defined in Section 21 000 of the California Public Resources Code. Under SB 732,
adoption of an implementation plan does not constitute the approval of any specific
program, project, or expenditure. Thus, each specific project, program or expenditure in
an implementation plan will be subject to the standard California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) review otherwise required at the time of its approval.
Honorable Chair and June 15, 2010
Members of the Communit Improvement Commission Pa 3 of 3
RECOMMENDATION
Hold a Public Hearin and adopt Resolution approvin and adoptin the Five-Year
Implementation Plan for the Business and Waterfront and West End Communit
Improvement Projects for FY09-1 0 FY1 3-14.
0-,
Respectf submitted,
L i e A Little
Economic Development Director
D ES: ry
M111
1. Implementation Plan On File in the Cit Clerk's Office
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE FIDE -YEAR IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
FOR THE BUSINESSAN❑WATERFRONT
AN❑ THE WEST END
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS (2010 -2014)
WHEREAS, Section 33490 of the California Community Redevelopment
Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.), re requires that q every five
a years the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda
z "Commission must adopt a five -year implementation plan for its Community
s: Improvement Projects; and
WHEREAS, the Commission has prepared a proposed Five -Year
Implementation Plan for the Business and Waterfront and West End .Community
Improvement Projects (the "Implementation Plan containing the specific .goals
and objectives of the Commission for the Projects, the specific programs,
including potential projects and estimated expenditures proposed to be made
during the 2010 2014 five year term of the Implementation Plan for.the Projects,
and an explanation of how the goals and objectives, programs and
expenditures will eliminate blight within the area of the Projects "Project
Areas and implement the requirements of Sections 33334.2, 33334.4 33334.0
and 33413; and
WHEREAS, as required by Section 33490 of the Community
Redevelopment Law, a public hearing was held by the Commission on June 1 5 1
2010, to review the Implementation Plan and consider and. act upon the
adoption of the Implementation Plan, and the testimony of all persons interested
in the matter was heard; and
WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing was published in the Alameda
Journal and posted in at least four (4) permanent places within each of the
Project Areas, once a week for three (3) successive weeks and publication and
posting was completed not less than ten (10) days prior to the public hearing as
required by Section 33490 of the Community Redevelopment Law; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Implementation Plan, together with all
information pertaining thereto, was made available for public inspection
concurrently with the publication and posting of the notice of the public hearing;
and
WHEREAS, the Commission has reviewed and considered the proposed
Implementation Plan.
NOW) THEREFORE, THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ALAME❑A DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
Resolution 4 A
CC ARBA CIC
U6 -15 -1D
Section 1. The Commission hereby approves and adopts the Five
Year Implementation Plan for the Business and Waterfront and West End
Community Improvement Projects (2010 2014), in substantially the fora
currently on file with the Commission Secretary and presented to the
Commission at the public hearing held on June 15, 2010, subject to any further
minor, technical, or clarifying changes that may be approved by Commission
Counsel.
1, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly
and regularly adopted and passed by the Community Improvement Commission
of the City of Alameda in a special Community Improvement Commission
meeting assembled on thel5th day of June, 2010 by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the
official seal of said Commission this 16th day of June, 2010.
Lara Weisiger, Secretary
Community Improvement Commission
Beverly Johnson, Chair
Community Improvement Commission